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.
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.
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.
Stealing 100k USD is a very significant crime, and I find it very ridiculous that you'd compare that to jaywalking.
The criminal was not ordered to "just make art", but comissioned to make a specific piece requested by the gallery - in the form of a frame filled with said money. As such, this is no different than if you hired a carpenter to build you a house, paid upfront with contractual obligations, but the carpenter then just ran off with the money without doing anything. Or if you hired an individual and gave them access to company accounts for the purpose of doing their job, which they then embezzled and ran away with.
The money was loaned for a contractually described use-case with a return date. Walking away with it with no intention to return - and trying to keep it afterwards when sued - is nothing but theft of a significant sum.
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
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.
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.
" 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."