Danish artist who submitted empty frames as artwork told to repay funding
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
Whoops. You weren't supposed to admit that it was breach of contract. You were supposed to say that by displaying your art, they publicly signaled their acceptance of the work. They're trying to get a refund on the sandwich they just ate. You could have told them to piss off if you hadn't characterized the work as a breach of contract. Or, that's the legal advice a scammer would follow. Instead, it's a proof of principled action that, in my mind, restores its status as a work of art.
> He added: "I encourage other people who have working conditions as miserable as mine to do the same. If they're sitting in some shitty job and not getting paid, and are actually being asked to pay money to go to work, then grab what you can and beat it."
I think honest people, when we are not good enough at something, should pick another job and move on. That's how things are.
Instead, they hired an artiste/provocateur. He did the work that he is best at: he got the museum all over the international news, bringing significantly more value to the institution than if he had satisfied their small-minded request that he remake a previous work with insignificant changes. Talk about bringing value to the organization; this guy is more effective than most CEOs I've known.
I lived for almost 12 years in Asia, mostly in Vietnam, but also in Singapore. Seriously, the concept of miserable that we have in Europe has become (at least according to my perception) something like "I do not like it, so it is ok to go get the money from a museum, to get social helps, to blame the politicians about the labor market... whatever". I think that is not honest at all most of the time.
The average local in Vietnam lives in much harder conditions actually. I do not mean we should live like them. But be aware that most people in the world live like Vietnamese, not like Danish, in average.
He's been told he has to pay back that money, but not his artist's fee.
The title should be edited, the artist was not told to repay funding, he was told to return the bank notes that he was given as a medium for the piece (wall of bills).
This is really more like an artist saying they'll make a gold statue from gold given by the museum, and delivering a clay statue (or no statue at all) after pocketing the gold.
I'm not in favor of nonsense art; just against hypocrisy.
Seems like a fair deal, since he also got a ton of publicity out of it.
Additionally, he pocketed the materials they provided for that thing, which were not part of the commission fee. This is straight up theft.
This is not some mystical, mysterious thing that cannot be defined. It's a product. They ordered a product, he delivered the wrong product, and they are well within their rights to pursue legal action against him.
Further, they ordered a redo of a creative effort. They understood it would be substantially the same as the referenced work. He deviated significantly, creatively.
Oh well. It's all their business I guess.
Fantastic. They validated his work as John Cage style art!
It's not "nothing" in those frames. It's an ingenious representation of the essential emptimess of life and art, seen through the lens of the viewers interpretation.