[ryanmcdonough]

Museum director Lasse Andersson said that he had laughed out loud when he first saw the two blank canvasses in 2021, and decided to show the works anyway.

"He stirred up my curatorial staff and he also stirred me up a bit, but I also had a laugh because it was really humoristic," the museum's director, Lasse Andersson

So the museum director was happy, curators were interested and they were on display - feels like the money was his?

[michaelt]

> So the museum director was happy, curators were interested and they were on display - feels like the money was his?

Well, the context is they paid him to reproduce previous works, such as "An Average Danish Year Income, 2010" [1] which was literally comprised of 278500 Danish Kroner, mounted and framed.

If he's contracted to produce something, and decides to produce something different instead, it seems pretty clear the money wasn't his.

Interestingly, he's not the first artist to frame cash and put it in an art gallery - for example K Foundation's money-as-art works, "Money: A Major Body Of Cash" [2]

[1] https://www.sabsay.com/artists/43-jens-haaning/works/9668-je... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_Foundation#Money:_A_Major_Bo...

[FridayNightTV]

> K Foundation's money-as-art works, "Money: A Major Body Of Cash"

You cannot mention this without also mentioning "K Foundation Burn a Million Quid".

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

And yes, they really did do it. (This was the same blokes who, at the top of the UK charts, as an artistic statement deleted their entire music back catalogue, meaning you could no longer buy their music. In 1992, that really did mean no more sales of their music and no more profit for them.)

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

[wave_function]

I love how Wikipedia lists the budget of the film as one million pounds.

[Aurornis]

> So the museum director was happy, curators were interested and they were on display - feels like the money was his?

The contract decides who owns the money. It doesn’t matter if the museum director was amused or not. The money didn’t belong to the museum director, it belonged to the museum. There is no loophole in the law that says you get to keep the other side’s money if you can make them laugh in the process.

This is a straightforward breach of contract case.

Or maybe the museum could claim their lawsuit was also an art piece entitled “The Power of Contract Law” and then all of the critics of this decision would be happy again?

[Daviey]

I think you've misunderstood the intent of why someone commented on the museum director being amused. I think the understanding is that if the person who commissioned the work was "happy" with the result, then the artist had fulfilled his contract by supplying work that the commissioner was "happy with", despite it not being as they thought they were getting.

However, as it now turns out the money was only "lent" to the artist, so it wasn't his to retain. THAT is the reason that the reaction of the director isn't relevant.

[dustymcp]

Yes that money was not payment but a prop to the artpiece.

[kryptiskt]

He got to keep his fee, what he didn't get to keep was the cash that he was lent that was supposed to be part of the installation.

[exitb]

But it makes the art worse if the money's returned. It's JUST an empty canvas then, not even worth keeping on the wall.

[arghwhat]

While the idea was slightly amusing, it was always just empty canvases. The artist just also breached contract and committed theft on the side, which is an unjustified crime that does not in any way enhance said blank canvas.

The criminal individual was not even punished, he just have to return the stolen goods and still get paid. If the museum had not chosen to display the canvas, I feel it would be fair to require damages on top of the money returned in full, without pay deducted and with interest.

[Brian_K_White]

I hope you are not any form of art teacher. The work was legit.

The fact that it made some people mad and they don't understand, or at least appreciate it, is not proof that it's the highest form of art, but it is absolutely consistent with it.

Violating expectations is very much one (of many) purpose of art, and holding up "contract" doesn't change that. That's just a handy club that happens to be available in this case and you're willing to wield it to club something you don't like. Another legal c word is "context". No one can argue something like this wasn't always a possible interpretation, complete with prior examples.

So the court and some sufficient number of the voting population aren't artists and the only thing they see is money and a canvas? That is the least interesting and least valid proof of worth or validity of a piece or work of art ever. Just like all the people who say "It's just splatters, I could do that!". That only makes them common and in possession of a club, not right.

[arghwhat]

> I hope you are not any form of art teacher. The work was legit.

Crime is unacceptable and is not to be glorified as art.

Especially not this kind of lowly and outright pathetic attempt at crime.

[Brian_K_White]

Zomg crime!

They provided money to get an artistic statement about money, which they got, and which the executor/commissioner/agent both accepted delivery of, and displayed.

Did they charge any ticket or membership fees to enter the gallery where the accepted work was displayed? Did they return that collected money to the patrons?

Crying "crime!" is a weak argument. Jaywalking is a crime.

[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."

[jl6]

"The work is that I have taken their money."

I guess this artwork works in both directions.

[hnbad]

I think the argument of whether he delivered art is a red herring. They commissioned a specific piece of art and he failed to deliver on that. Arguably he did deliver a work of performance art but apparently the contract was fairly specific so it's reasonable that they expect to have the money returned after deducting his expenses.

[karmakaze]

The artist forgot to follow through on the work's title "Take the Money and Run."