> Haaning told Danish radio at the time: "The work is that I have taken their money. It's not theft. It is breach of contract, and breach of contract is part of the work."
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."
It's pretty clear from the article that he was paid ~5K USD to replicate a piece of work he'd already created twice before—bank notes arranged to demonstrate average annual income. The museum also gave him the money that would feature in this artwork, but it was not intended as a payment.
He's been told he has to pay back that money, but not his artist's fee.
> The museum provided about 532,000 krone (£61,500) from its reserves to recreate artworks as well as an artist’s fee of about 40,000 krone. But when staff unpacked the newly delivered works, they found two empty frames with the title Take the Money and Run.
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.
The court subtracted a fee for the artwork and for the display of the work, which he does not have to give back - so the artist did in fact get paid for his empty frame artwork. Now he just has to give back the money he lent for the originally agreed upon artwork that he did not create.
Seems like a fair deal, since he also got a ton of publicity out of it.
It doesn't matter if it's art or not. They commissioned a specific thing, and he did not make that thing. If I commission a painting, and the artist gives me a pencil doodle instead, I can admit the latter is art but still demand a refund.
Additionally, he pocketed the materials they provided for that thing, which were not part of the commission fee. This is straight up theft.
> The museum put the new artworks on display, but when Haaning
declined to return the money, it took legal action.
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.
[+] [-] klyrs|2 years ago|reply
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."
[+] [-] germandiago|2 years ago|reply
I think honest people, when we are not good enough at something, should pick another job and move on. That's how things are.
[+] [-] d1sxeyes|2 years ago|reply
He's been told he has to pay back that money, but not his artist's fee.
[+] [-] belval|2 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] JoeAltmaier|2 years ago|reply
I'm not in favor of nonsense art; just against hypocrisy.
[+] [-] goodusername|2 years ago|reply
Seems like a fair deal, since he also got a ton of publicity out of it.
[+] [-] gwern|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] conformist|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] RoyalHenOil|2 years ago|reply
Additionally, he pocketed the materials they provided for that thing, which were not part of the commission fee. This is straight up theft.
[+] [-] nonrandomstring|2 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] germandiago|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] boppo1|2 years ago|reply