[ryanmcdonough]

He said the work was taking their money, unless the contract specifically said

“The artist shall utilise the bank notes to visually reproduce a specific artwork, such as the Mona Lisa. The bank notes should form the actual colours and contours of the artwork, and the final piece should not be a mere abstract interpretation.”

Maybe it did and that’s why they got the money back, but if not I’d side with the artist

[pringk02]

It seems that was basically what it was. He had an earlier 2010 work called "An Average Danish Year Income": https://www.sabsay.com/artists/43-jens-haaning/works/9668-je...

He was asked to reproduce it for 2021 using the money given

[Aurornis]

> unless the contract specifically said

That’s the whole point of the lawsuit. The artist broke the terms of the contract.

You don’t think they’d hand him a giant pile of cash, ask nicely for him to give it back, and hope for the best, do you? These commissions will have clear contracts about deliverables, ownership, and rights assignment.

[runesoerensen]

That was the point of the lawsuit. But also seems like the law, museum, and lots of people here missed the point too.

The guy was paid less than $6K for his work. He was not handed a "giant pile of cash" either, but he will now have to pay back the cash that the museum (for whatever reason) lent him, along with the legal costs amounting to ~$11K.

[FridayNightTV]

> The artist shall utilise the bank notes to visually reproduce a specific artwork

More amusing if the artist burnt the money and used the ashes to create an artwork.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_Foundation_Burn_a_Million_Qu...

" K Foundation Burn A Million Quid....... compiles stills from the film, accounts of events and viewer reactions, and an image of the brick that was manufactured from the fire's ashes. A film consisting of a static three-minute shot of the brick, "This Brick", was shown at London's Barbican Centre prior to Drummond and Cauty's [The K Foundation] performance as 2K in the same year."