He didn’t break the deal. The piece is called “take the money and run” the fact that the money is missing from the empty canvas at display is the statement being made. And people clearly are paying to come see it.
Imagine the exact same scenario but he just never took the money, left it at the museum and just provided 2 empty canvas. It would not have the same effect and reach. And it would have been a breach of contract.
The artist delivered and the Museum literally got their moneys worth.
He broke the deal because that’s not was agreed upon, he was supposed to make an artwork comparing incomes between rich and poor but just stole the money which was intended to be part of the artwork.
You must have a different source then the one above because i see nothing about about the exact topic being part of the deal.
If that is the case then i see your point (though i think there is wiggle room left to argue that such topic was included, it would need to be the artist themselves to do the creative arguing)
A Danish artist has been ordered to return nearly 500,000 kroner ($72,000; £58,000) to a museum after giving it two blank canvasses for a project he named Take the Money and Run.
The Kunsten Museum in Aalborg had intended for Jens Haaning to embed the banknotes in two pieces of art in 2021.
Maybe i am reading it from a different perspective but intended = / =agreed on and embed is subjective cause the money is connected to the art. Even if its quantum entanglement.
I did misread the end of the article though. Apparently its the artist speaking and not the museum, i don’t think he ever expected to keep the money but justplay enough hardball to get famous, which worked.
Maybe its just me getting mildly triggered by some terms now.
This is a cool discussion but i want to put some disclaimer because this is my so maniest comment with a pro-artist stance. I don’t have hard feeling either way of the argument.
Having said that i think if the museum intended the piece to be made by such narrow definitions then they weren’t looking for art and they didn’t need an artist.
There are thousands of art works commenting on the wealth gap that use real money as a medium it hardly be original. (Museum intended, seems opposite of artistic integrity)
The artwork that was provided is an original creative work. It comments on the wealth gap. (Museum spends big on artistic decor versus normal people who can use that money to live).
The money is entangled with the art. Without the stolen money the art would not have a meaning.
I actually think the museum should present the money in a big money bag next to the painting labeled “stolen money” it would simultaneously remain part of the original work while also being its own reactionary peace on how crime doesn’t pay.
Here is an idea. The museum can hire me as an artist to put the money in that bag for them. I promise i wont fill it with junk and name it “unwise investment” /s
First, Banksey actually creates art. Second, This stunt generated 0 patrons. The person who does marketing for the museum generated publicity and patrons for bringing this to the medias attention. Without that, people would wonder why there was a blank canvas there.
So the museum made much more money thanks to the publicity but is still demanding their money back?
He broke the deal they made and stole the money which the museum gave him to incorporate in the artwork.
He was still paid the actual payment he was supposed to receive for making the artwork, they want the money which they lend him for the artwork back.
He didn’t break the deal. The piece is called “take the money and run” the fact that the money is missing from the empty canvas at display is the statement being made. And people clearly are paying to come see it.
Imagine the exact same scenario but he just never took the money, left it at the museum and just provided 2 empty canvas. It would not have the same effect and reach. And it would have been a breach of contract.
The artist delivered and the Museum literally got their moneys worth.
He broke the deal because that’s not was agreed upon, he was supposed to make an artwork comparing incomes between rich and poor but just stole the money which was intended to be part of the artwork.
He was not hired to make “take the money and run”
An artists chose to steal money from a rich museum. That’s art commenting on wealth inequality imo…
It’s theft and should be punished.
Idk, not all theft is evil and SHOULD be punished. Stealing food when hungry, stealing back from the capitalist class, funny theft… yeah.
You must have a different source then the one above because i see nothing about about the exact topic being part of the deal.
If that is the case then i see your point (though i think there is wiggle room left to argue that such topic was included, it would need to be the artist themselves to do the creative arguing)
FTA:
Maybe i am reading it from a different perspective but intended = / =agreed on and embed is subjective cause the money is connected to the art. Even if its quantum entanglement.
I did misread the end of the article though. Apparently its the artist speaking and not the museum, i don’t think he ever expected to keep the money but justplay enough hardball to get famous, which worked.
Alternative interpretations necessarily ignore the museum’s intent.
Maybe its just me getting mildly triggered by some terms now.
This is a cool discussion but i want to put some disclaimer because this is my so maniest comment with a pro-artist stance. I don’t have hard feeling either way of the argument.
Having said that i think if the museum intended the piece to be made by such narrow definitions then they weren’t looking for art and they didn’t need an artist.
There are thousands of art works commenting on the wealth gap that use real money as a medium it hardly be original. (Museum intended, seems opposite of artistic integrity)
The artwork that was provided is an original creative work. It comments on the wealth gap. (Museum spends big on artistic decor versus normal people who can use that money to live). The money is entangled with the art. Without the stolen money the art would not have a meaning.
I actually think the museum should present the money in a big money bag next to the painting labeled “stolen money” it would simultaneously remain part of the original work while also being its own reactionary peace on how crime doesn’t pay.
Here is an idea. The museum can hire me as an artist to put the money in that bag for them. I promise i wont fill it with junk and name it “unwise investment” /s
The artist named it “Take the Money and Run.” The museum should change it to “Get your Money Back and Laugh.”
If this stunt generated far more publicity and/or patrons than an actual painting, couldn’t the “artist” argue they fulfilled their end of the deal?
I wouldn’t be surprised if some rich idiot pays a large amount of money for it, like that Banksy painting that sold for 20x after self-destructing.
First, Banksey actually creates art. Second, This stunt generated 0 patrons. The person who does marketing for the museum generated publicity and patrons for bringing this to the medias attention. Without that, people would wonder why there was a blank canvas there.
They gave the artist a bunch of money that was supposed to be used in the piece and was to be returned once done. It wasnt used nor returned.
Yeah but the art piece he did produce was much better
its a breach of contract regardless
It makes a statement.
I argue the money was used in the piece. The fact that it was missing from the canvas was part of the artistic statement.
Sure but it was supposed to be returned either way
deleted by creator
Removed by mod