Jens Haaning was given €71,000 by a Danish museum to create art, but sent it blank frames.
  • XIIIesq@lemmy.worldEnglish
    6·
    1 year ago

    Inb4: Actually it’s profound performance art, you’re just annoyed because you’re too simple to understand it. Yes, anyone could do it, but he did!!!

    “Modern art is fucking wank”, change my mind.

  • TheLameSauce@lemmy.worldEnglish
    4·
    1 year ago

    I mean if you’re gonna try to pull this shit, maybe name the piece something more subtle than “take the money and run”.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldBEnglish
    2·
    1 year ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:

    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.

    The museum asked for the artist to return all the money, around 534,000 kroner - but Mr Haaning refused.

    Now, after a long legal battle, a Copenhagen court on Monday ordered Mr Haaning, 58, to refund the museum 492,549 kroner.

    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 told TV2 Nord on Monday the museum had made “much, much more” money than what it invested thanks to the publicity surrounding the affair.

    The original article contains 296 words, the summary contains 146 words. Saved 51%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

    • enkers@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      3·
      1 year ago

      He told TV2 Nord on Monday the museum had made “much, much more” money than what it invested thanks to the publicity surrounding the affair.

      So let me get this straight, the museum more than recovers their costs and then goes and gets back 92% of their initial investment back as well?

  • peanuts4life@beehaw.orgEnglish
    1·
    1 year ago

    As per the original agreement, it’s a violation of contract, but I do feel like it’s an unusual step to shotgun the relationship with the artist, considering that the installation did make money overall.

    In another article, it seemed the artist was having difficult paying the money back. It’s all sort of strange. Like, wasn’t the mission accomplished?