Currency

August 31, 2011 3:57 PM

After receiving a $20,000 grant from the Australia Council, Denis Beaubois set about creating his artwork, Currency, 2011, by withdrawing $20,000 from a teller at the Reserve Bank of Australia and writing down the serial numbers. The artwork sold at auction yesterday for $17,500.

He told The Age last month he stood to make no profit from the project. ''I'm not getting paid a cent,'' he said. ''If it's sold, the money I make will be used to finance part two of the project, which is a series of performance/video works on the division of labour, and capitalism.''

posted by robcorr (75 comments total)

The KLF did something similar to this with Nailed To A Wall.

Nailed To A Wall had a reserve price of £500,000, half the face value of the cash used in its construction, which Scotland on Sunday's reporter Robert Dawson Scott was "fairly confident... really was £1 million [in cash]". The catalogue entry for the artwork stated: "Over the years the face value will be eroded by inflation, while the artistic value will rise and rise. The precise point at which the artistic value will overtake the face value is unknown. Deconstruct the work now and you double your money. Hang it on a wall and watch the face value erode, the market value fluctuate, and the artistic value soar. The choice is yours."
posted by dng at 4:03 PM on August 31, 2011 [4 favorites]

Well my 401(k) lost 17.5% last month. Maybe this guy is on to something.
posted by holdkris99 at 4:04 PM on August 31, 2011 [2 favorites]

This fellow is a few shillings short of a pound.
posted by anigbrowl at 4:06 PM on August 31, 2011 [3 favorites]

The mission of many modern artists these days seems to be to make as many people as possible hate the very idea of art.

That can't be good for us as a society. On the other hand: fuck art, let's dance!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:07 PM on August 31, 2011 [5 favorites]

So sick of jokes masquerading as art.
posted by Lovecraft In Brooklyn at 4:10 PM on August 31, 2011 [9 favorites]

The KLF did something similar to this with Nailed To A Wall.

Damien Hirst cries himself to sleep every night wishing he was as cool as the K Foundation.
posted by anigbrowl at 4:10 PM on August 31, 2011 [9 favorites]

You're doing it wrong.
posted by Splunge at 4:10 PM on August 31, 2011

Well at least my kid couldn't do this; he hasn't the money.
posted by 2bucksplus at 4:11 PM on August 31, 2011 [9 favorites]

Paging Shakespherian, and he and I can go around in circles again on the issue of whether art matters anymore. ''Raises fascinating questions'' (per the article, quoting the catalogue) indeed--why does calling $20,000 "art" make it worth less? The sorry state of art qua cleverness these days, I'd wager.

I do like the notion that, had the work sold at a profit, Beaubois would not be paid a cent, other than for him to use on his next project. I guess I'm not paid a cent, either, other than the money I use to spend on things.
posted by Admiral Haddock at 4:12 PM on August 31, 2011 [3 favorites]

Damien Hirst cries himself to sleep every night wishing he was as cool as the K Foundation.

And how. Justified and ancient, man, justified and ancient.
posted by Admiral Haddock at 4:12 PM on August 31, 2011 [1 favorite]

Turn $20,000 into $17,500? Investment bankers can do this via an IPO if you prefer.
posted by chavenet at 4:13 PM on August 31, 2011 [8 favorites]

That really is interesting, how is the money worth less now that it is art. Could be the the practicability of actually spending it, after all if you buy it as art you can't really spend it. Who wants to be the art collector who got hungry so he peeled off a hundo to buy a couple brats a a beer.
posted by Ad hominem at 4:16 PM on August 31, 2011

$20,000 is peanuts, really, but this is still a terribly stupid, wasteful and uninspiring stunt. Looking at the Australia Council for the Arts grants list is an informative exercise.
posted by tumid dahlia at 4:16 PM on August 31, 2011 [1 favorite]

from the link above- a forum comment:

"Well, technically the artist didn't lose anything, seeings he produced the 'art piece' with government funds - so in the end it was the taxpayer who took the loss.

"I'm thinking of applying for a grant myself - my piece will be a 10 minute video of me losing $20,000 on poker machines. It will explore the subject matter of the tension between the economic value of a night at Crown Casino against the intelligence level of the people gifting government arts grants... And I won't even charge a buyer's fee!

Exactly. Whatever "Art" is, this isn't. He took the money in a grant?!? I call fraud. Another "artist" who is wooed by the intelligentsia for grandstanding a weak and expensive idea.
posted by Vibrissae at 4:18 PM on August 31, 2011 [1 favorite]

I'm still waiting for the KLF to do the inevitable mashup of Doctor Who and Tammy Wynette. Come on, dudes!
posted by oneswellfoop at 4:18 PM on August 31, 2011

Am I missing something here? From the article:

$17,500 (plus buyers commission and GST of $3850)

To me this means that the cost out the door to the purchaser of the art was $21,350. The artist received $17,500, then presumably the seller's commission is what brought his "paper loss" up to $5,000 from $2,500. If this is a commentary on anything I'd say it's on the friction introduced by selling something in a market where the government and the middlemen each take their cut of the transaction.
posted by kaytwo at 4:21 PM on August 31, 2011 [2 favorites]

As we've seen, a good artist can sign a urinal and make it valuable. A bad artist, not so much. The main value of this project is that it demonstrates exactly how much value was subtracted by the association.

I'm still waiting for the KLF to do the inevitable mashup of Doctor Who and Tammy Wynette.


I notice that the words "Tammy Wynette" fit the bass line of the Doctor Who theme rather well.
posted by w0mbat at 4:24 PM on August 31, 2011

The buyer had to pay a commission, so the actual cost would have been over $20,000.

Also bear in mind that it was funded by a grant, not a loan. So he "profits" no matter what.

I think this is a genuinely intriguing artwork, but it could have been better. The auctioneer's catalogue says it raises

Aspects of Arts Law such as Moral Rights, which protect artists from someone, including the owner, defacing or destroying their work, (although in this case it is important to the artist that the new owners should be entitled to and may choose to ‘break it up’ and spend the cash)...

How much more interesting would it be to ask people to buy a stack of legal currency that they are not allowed to spend?
posted by robcorr at 4:28 PM on August 31, 2011

The auction had greater satire than the art.
posted by Sticherbeast at 4:32 PM on August 31, 2011 [1 favorite]

Whatever "Art" is, this isn't.

I don't like the Collingwood Magpies, but that doesn't mean they're not a football team.
posted by robcorr at 4:32 PM on August 31, 2011 [2 favorites]

But are they art?
posted by tumid dahlia at 4:35 PM on August 31, 2011 [2 favorites]

That is genius. Amazing. I love how he puts it:

"He has described the subject matter of Currency as ''the tension between the economic value of the material against the cultural value of the art object''. That tension would be ''explored through the process of the financial transaction'' - by selling the work at auction."

Absolutely: he has deconstructed the pricing of the peice into the art itself.
posted by marienbad at 4:37 PM on August 31, 2011 [9 favorites]

And, in any event, they must be the jauntiest named football team. I find that entirely charming. I wonder whether they would do better or worse if the ball were shiny.
posted by Admiral Haddock at 4:37 PM on August 31, 2011

The way they move the ball through the midfield… yes, they're art. And I hate them for it.
posted by robcorr at 4:37 PM on August 31, 2011

Australian magpies are altogether different. They don't collect shiny things, and they protect their nests by staking out a territory and viciously swooping people who walk into it. Nothing jaunty about them.
posted by robcorr at 4:41 PM on August 31, 2011 [1 favorite]

Holy shit I had a dream last night about getting fucked-up by an attacking magpie, weird!
posted by tumid dahlia at 4:44 PM on August 31, 2011

The Reserve Bank has tellers?
posted by Jimbob at 4:44 PM on August 31, 2011

WHAAAT! This is ART? Hell, my three-year-old could do that!

except for the writing down the serial numbers part
posted by flapjax at midnite at 4:45 PM on August 31, 2011 [1 favorite]

Has somebody bothered to count the notes? Just saying.
posted by vidur at 4:46 PM on August 31, 2011 [2 favorites]

I am glad to have been ornithologically enlightened; I had no idea there was a schism in the magpie community on the thorny question of "Are shiny things the best?"

I'd also note that your currency is very pretty.
posted by Admiral Haddock at 4:51 PM on August 31, 2011

Admiral Haddock: I do like the notion that, had the work sold at a profit, Beaubois would not be paid a cent, other than for him to use on his next project. I guess I'm not paid a cent, either, other than the money I use to spend on things.

Hmm.

We're spigots, then? Spigots made of person? Money comes in one side and sprays out the other?

Anyhow, previously: "A Tool to Deceive and Slaughter is a sculpture that, in creator Caleb Larsen's own words, "perpetually attempts to sell itself on eBay."
posted by notyou at 4:53 PM on August 31, 2011

So sick of jokes masquerading as art.

The point, at this particular historical juncture, I think, is the "masquerade". The point is not that it's "art". It's that it's actually a masquerade, period. In that sense, I suppose it has "something to say". Except that what it's saying is really, you know, fucking boring.

I prefer the brilliant works of Marcel Duchamp and Man Ray, for example, who masterfully produced the opposite: art masquerading as jokes.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 4:54 PM on August 31, 2011

The KLF did something similar to this with Nailed To A Wall.

They then supposedly burned the million GBP on a remote Scottish island.
posted by rh at 4:54 PM on August 31, 2011

This is also going to make it harder for real artists to get funding.


The point, at this particular historical juncture, I think, is the "masquerade". The point is not that it's "art". It's that it's actually a masquerade, period. In that sense, I suppose it has "something to say". Except that what it's saying is really, you know, fucking boring.

I prefer the brilliant works of Marcel Duchamp and Man Ray, for example, who masterfully produced the opposite: art masquerading as jokes.

I don't mind them (and I like some of the Dada sound poetry) but I think it was the beginning of the end. I prefer surrealism, which seemed to be the last art form that was as interested in beauty and meaning as it was in trying to make some trite 'message'.
posted by Lovecraft In Brooklyn at 5:00 PM on August 31, 2011 [1 favorite]

"A Tool to Deceive and Slaughter is a sculpture that, in creator Caleb Larsen's own words, "perpetually attempts to sell itself on eBay."

Notyou, that's great!
posted by Admiral Haddock at 5:01 PM on August 31, 2011

Yeah, but I munged the link: "http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=190367275705#ht_2488wt_1167"

This listing (190367275705) has been removed, or this item is not available.

"Perpetual" turned out to be "for a while, then who knows?"
posted by notyou at 5:06 PM on August 31, 2011

This is also going to make it harder for real artists to get funding.

There are some many things I could respond to this trolling with, but I will say instead that you sir, are a ninny.
posted by archivist at 5:15 PM on August 31, 2011

Bugger, I should have known 17 grand and change was cheap for a Monet.
posted by Abiezer at 5:16 PM on August 31, 2011 [1 favorite]

This is still up at the Guggenheim.
posted by relooreloo at 5:18 PM on August 31, 2011

Monet Monet
posted by flapjax at midnite at 5:19 PM on August 31, 2011

This is also going to make it harder for real artists to get funding.

There are some many things I could respond to this trolling with, but I will say instead that you sir, are a ninny.

How is this trolling? I know genuine artists, poets, and musicians who are struggling to get their work produced. The next time the issue of arts funding comes up you can bet the cultural conservatives will point to work like this as an excuse to cut it. I'd rather have one new Drones album than a thousand (expensive) cheap little jokes.

How do people not see how psychologically alienating and pointless this sort of 'art' is?
posted by Lovecraft In Brooklyn at 5:22 PM on August 31, 2011 [3 favorites]

So basically he managed to launder $20,000 at a cost of 12.5%?

That's better than Saul Goodman charges Walt, right?
posted by Pinback at 5:37 PM on August 31, 2011 [2 favorites]

I know genuine artists, poets, and musicians who are struggling to get their work produced.

Why are they struggling to get their art produced? Aren't they the artists? So, aren't they the ones producing it? So why are they struggling to produce their own art? I produce my own art all the time. There's no real struggle to it. You just buy some paint and some brushes and find some free time and go make some art.

Maybe if someone handcuffed me, that might make it a struggle. Or maybe if I wanted to sculpt something out of solid saffron, that would be really expensive and thus a struggle. But I don't understand why the world owes it to me to pay for all my living expenses so that I can concentrate 100% of my time on my own selfish interests. They're my interests, it's up to me to find the time and money to pursue them. Not you.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 5:45 PM on August 31, 2011 [2 favorites]

Civil_Disobedient, that's an argument against all arts funding, period. It's not a rebuttal to LIB's point that these sorts of shenanigans are going to lead to decreased arts funding. Are you trying to say, "and those cultural conservatives are right" or... something else?
posted by joannemerriam at 5:49 PM on August 31, 2011 [4 favorites]

Paging Shakespherian, and he and I can go around in circles again on the issue of whether art matters anymore.

This is a meaningless question. Artworks can matter or not; artists can matter or not; artistic movements matter, more or less by definition, to anyone following them. The concept of art isn't any of those things, it's an abstraction that might in principle refer to all, some, or none of them. It might matter or not depending on what it turns out to refer to in this instance.
posted by LogicalDash at 5:56 PM on August 31, 2011

This is such an old idea. Chris Burden did a similar series of artworks, for example:

For Tower of Power (1985), for example, he asked the Wadsworth Atheneum museum to borrow a million dollars worth of gold bricks. From these he built a pyramid for exhibit -- to make this fantasy number literal. (It was quite unimposing, as it turned out.) But the museum, of course, had to hire extra security. And Tower made its point: if art is about money, why not just show the money?
posted by charlie don't surf at 6:02 PM on August 31, 2011 [2 favorites]

How do people not see how psychologically alienating and pointless this sort of 'art' is?

Because I'm not alienated by it and I think it has a point?

The Drones are cool, too.
posted by robcorr at 6:02 PM on August 31, 2011 [2 favorites]

3. ???
4. Profit!
posted by paladin at 6:15 PM on August 31, 2011

KLF (paraphrase): "If we had spent the money buying seven swimming pools, which rock stars usually do, it would go unnoticed."
posted by ovvl at 6:22 PM on August 31, 2011 [1 favorite]

I can't find it online but Chris Burden did artworks that were more directly precursors to the OP. In his retrospective catalog, it describes how he got a commission for something like $3000 and spent it on a diamond and an identical cubic zirconia. He put the fake stone on display labeled as real, and kept the real diamond. A photo of the two stones recently sold for $22k at auction.
posted by charlie don't surf at 6:25 PM on August 31, 2011

Civil_Disobedient, that's an argument against all arts funding, period. It's not a rebuttal to LIB's point that these sorts of shenanigans are going to lead to decreased arts funding. Are you trying to say, "and those cultural conservatives are right" or... something else?

And not a bad argument against arts funding.
posted by pseudonick at 6:28 PM on August 31, 2011

I always enjoy how the "quotation" "marks" come out in full force when discussing post-1945 art.
posted by Sreiny at 7:49 PM on August 31, 2011 [1 favorite]

He needs to pay that grant back to the Australia Council. Period. His foolish, petty, ill-imagined stunt - I can't call it art - probably cost a real artist a chance at a real break to produce real art.

If I were an Australian patron of the arts, I'd be leery of ever giving the Australia Council a donation again, given the appalling judgement shown here.
posted by FormlessOne at 8:39 PM on August 31, 2011 [2 favorites]

Civil_Disobedient, that's an argument against all arts funding, period.

Sure, that's an argument you could make against all arts funding, period. A pretty lousy argument. Which is why I'm not making it against all arts funding, period. If someone wants to donate to a fund that helps artists by, say, creating subsidized studio space for artists, or by offering classes to those interested in learning how to create their own art… well, that's one thing. But this is an egregious waste of money cowardly hiding behind a wall of You Can't Define Art! disingenuity.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 8:59 PM on August 31, 2011

I produce my own art all the time. There's no real struggle to it.

you're either an absolute master, doing it as a hobby to entertain yourself - or you're not pushing yourself hard enough

why settle for what you can do?
posted by pyramid termite at 9:05 PM on August 31, 2011

"Well, technically the artist didn't lose anything, seeings he produced the 'art piece' with government funds - so in the end it was the taxpayer who took the loss."

Does the grant money come from tax dollars? In Alberta, grant money from the Alberta Foundation for the Arts is supplied from lottery funds, which I suppose is a kind of tax. Just wanted to point out that not all art grants are "your tax dollars at work" :-)
posted by Calzephyr at 9:25 PM on August 31, 2011

If I were an Australian patron of the arts, I'd be leery of ever giving the Australia Council a donation again

If you were an Australian patron of the arts, you'd know that the Australia Council doesn't take donations.

But hey, if you're the kind of person who would blackball an organisation because you don't like the way they allocated 0.01% of their grant budget, I doubt you're paying much attention anyway.
posted by robcorr at 9:35 PM on August 31, 2011 [1 favorite]

Oh, and since his grant was to "create a series of video performances on the theme of currency and work", perhaps you should wait until he's finished before deciding whether they got their money's worth? Seems to me they might've got a twofer.
posted by robcorr at 9:45 PM on August 31, 2011

This art schtick - these "meta-plays on art"; these attempts at "deconstruction" of whatever, all sum up as private language. It's a clubby thing. So, sure, this is art for those that are in tune to the private language of the art world - this part of the art world. For everyone else, it's a snooze. Everyone wants to be recognized by their peers; status comes in many different forms, often, in the modern art world, by making creations that reject what most people have valued in the past, or currently value, now. It's an inside thing. Just like a plumber who spends an afternoon crafting a unique solution to laying pipe under a cramped sink, using materials and design that nobody has used before. Plumbers get it. Most others don't. Same here.

That said, the entire art museum thing - the money raised, the unreal auction prices - they're with us because wealthy people use their attachment to this stuff as a special kind of status. They get tax deductions, public buildings (or wings in public buildings) named after them; they get to afford "private collections"; they get special favors when they donate those "private collections" to the community, so the community can come to "appreciate" the insights that have been made famous mostly because of the money that has been thrown at them.

This project was making a kind of bet; the bet (using other people's money) was that this admittedly rather surprising use of currency would be considered so rare and offbeat - so clever - that some wealthy investor would generate a profit for its creator. Acting as my own devil's advocate, I think it's neat that the patron (investor?) who bought this currency piece for less than its face value says a lot about the art world, in that the habit has been for artists to get the crumbs, to be ignored, and encouraged to work for nothing. The real irony here is not the art piece, but the (probably) unintended outcome of the sale - i.e. that a wealthy collector could stick it to yet another artist, actually causing him a loss, even as he bought the artist's work. the collector could have paid a dollar more than face value, but this was a double win for the collector; he got something unique, and *knows* he made a killing (minus the fees). As the world turns.
posted by Vibrissae at 9:51 PM on August 31, 2011 [1 favorite]

That is genius. Amazing.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.
posted by obiwanwasabi at 11:09 PM on August 31, 2011 [1 favorite]

I was dumbstruck by this auction-object-thing, then I went to the artist's website and learned that he has a long history of producing half assed crap with Foucault-for-babies justifications. So he was bold enough to go the full nine yards and attempt to sell the result of taking precisely no effort whatsoever. That takes guts.

I despise modern art but I actually like this. It's so evil it wraps around and becomes brilliant. Everyone can find something to love from it. Even if you hate modern art you are forced to love it because it is such a perfect argument for eliminating all public funding for the arts. Because it made a headlines splash, the sophomoric, meaningless pile of dollars is now guaranteed to increase in value.
posted by shii at 11:49 PM on August 31, 2011 [3 favorites]

"That is genius. Amazing.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not."
posted by obiwanwasabi at 7:09 AM

I am being serious. It reminds me of the guy in the UK who had a peice of bluc-tac stuck to a wall, a comment on the fragmented and temporary nature of society, how people share the same spaces as stangers at different times. Almost everyone has rented a room and when they entered, there were the white rectangles where the other persons posters had been, and a peice of bluie-tac stuck to the corner of one of the rectangles.

So the blue-tac represents all of this in one simple metaphor.
posted by marienbad at 1:40 AM on September 1, 2011

Call me an old fogey, but I prefer art that actually makes your world more interesting to look at, and requires more subtle skills than writing a good artist's statement. I spent a significant portion of my life learning how to draw my ass off, and some part of me feels like stuff like this is devaluing the whole idea of "art". Which is pretty much my life.

I do not require representation in art - I love to look at Op art (and mine it for ideas now that I have a tireless assistant called Adobe Illustrator) - but I kinda want there to be some actual craft on the part of the person signing their name to the piece.
posted by egypturnash at 3:59 AM on September 1, 2011

why settle for what you can do?

Because I like it?

That seems to be enough for the audience...
posted by LogicalDash at 4:53 AM on September 1, 2011

This is conceptual art.

Conceptual art exists, in the main, to make cool stories and conversations and the like. It's difficult to choose exactly what to do for your conceptual art, for much the same reason it's difficult to make a good FPP; but making the actual object doesn't need to be difficult. It's not expected. That's a genre convention from older art forms that doesn't apply here.

Hoaxes are interesting and have made lots of good stories. So, to accuse conceptual art of being a hoax is not much of an insult.
posted by LogicalDash at 4:57 AM on September 1, 2011

I produce my own art all the time. There's no real struggle to it.

That's what the prunes are for.
posted by wilful at 5:13 AM on September 1, 2011

"I think it's neat that...a wealthy collector could stick it to yet another artist, actually causing him a loss, even as he bought the artist's work. the collector could have paid a dollar more than face value, but this was a double win for the collector; he got something unique, and *knows* he made a killing (minus the fees). As the world turns."

Continuing from the idea of local cultural cache, I'm imagining this as a sublime example of Nash Equilibrium.
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 6:33 AM on September 1, 2011 [1 favorite]

w0mbat: "As we've seen, a good artist can sign a urinal and make it valuable. A bad artist, not so much. The main value of this project is that it demonstrates exactly how much value was subtracted by the association.
"


The skill/ability of the so-called artist has nothing to do with it. It is all marketing. Art truly is the embodiment of the tale of The Emperor's New Clothes. When a blank canvas, a pure black canvas, a traffic jam, trash, shit, and standing around is called art it devalues the talent of real artists. Sure it gets people talking about it and that is fine - as long as it is supported solely by willing buyers and not tax dollars.

Speaking of signing urinals, Piero Manzoni well known for selling cans of his feces and balloons filled with his air, used to sign people's bodies and call them artworks.
posted by 2manyusernames at 7:54 AM on September 1, 2011

And Tower made its point: if art is about money, why not just show the money?

Hans-Peter Feldman had a similar exhibition at The Guggenheim recently: $100,000 Wallpaper.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 9:09 AM on September 1, 2011

This reminds me that I'm excited for Canada to be getting that fancy Australian plastic money. Sure, it's only $100 bills this year, but soon enough we'll have em all. Yay, fun plastic money!
posted by antifuse at 9:58 AM on September 1, 2011

I know genuine artists, poets, and musicians who are struggling to get their work produced. The next time the issue of arts funding comes up you can bet the cultural conservatives will point to work like this as an excuse to cut it. I'd rather have one new Drones album than a thousand (expensive) cheap little jokes.


I just listened to the Drones and I don't think they're very interesting. I'd rather have one expensive conceptual art piece than a thousand Drones albums. Isn't conceptual art worthwhile because you often have to ponder the meaning? Dismissing art because you don't think it is 'genuine' is fine, but you should think about why you feel that way. The struggling artists, poets, and musicians you know may produce work you enjoy right off the bat, but this conceptual art piece has challenged you to figure out why you don't like it/why the AU government funded it/why others like it. I think that is far more valuable.
posted by 200burritos at 11:10 AM on September 1, 2011

Isn't conceptual art worthwhile because you often have to ponder the meaning?

Nope, because its making a trite point about consumerism and art. I'd rather art that helps me understand myself or the country or the human heart or religion. Something that has MEANING, rather than cleverness.
posted by Lovecraft In Brooklyn at 4:31 PM on September 1, 2011 [1 favorite]

Nope, because its making a trite point about consumerism and art. I'd rather art that helps me understand myself or the country or the human heart or religion. Something that has MEANING, rather than cleverness.

Well it wasn't trite the first time it was done, like back in the early eighties. But now it is. Not because of the idea, but because someone else did it like before this guy Denis Beaubois was even born, and now that he came up with it and think it's original, it isn't. The conceptual framework of the original conceptual artists like Chris Burden are so commonly accepted, today's artists don't even know their works aren't original.

Conceptual works like Chris Burden's "Tower of Power" was an experiment to examine the world of art, and how artists, museums, and art viewers think of art. That isn't about consumerism unless you think of yourself as a mere consumer.
posted by charlie don't surf at 10:15 PM on September 1, 2011

The skill/ability of the so-called artist has nothing to do with it. It is all marketing.

If you insist.

In that case, the artist is a marketer. The artist occupies a similar position in the art world that graphic designers occupy in the world of "real" ads.

Graphic design is pretty subtle. So is conceptual art. I'm sorry, "marketing".
posted by LogicalDash at 5:55 AM on September 2, 2011

Graphic design is pretty subtle. So is conceptual art

I'm not sure what's so subtle about this particular piece of conceptual art, to be honest with you.
posted by antifuse at 8:02 AM on September 2, 2011 [1 favorite]