A museum gave an artist $84,000 in cash. He delivered blank canvases.
September 28, 2021 2:24 PM Subscribe
Sometimes late stage capitalism is fun
posted by nubs at 2:33 PM on September 28, 2021 [24 favorites]
posted by nubs at 2:33 PM on September 28, 2021 [24 favorites]
if the money is not returned on January 16, "we will of course take the necessary steps to ensure that Jens Haaning complies with his contract."
Curators should frame a copy of their correspondence with their lawyers, displaying it as an artwork in the gallery under the title "fraud around and find out."
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 2:33 PM on September 28, 2021 [25 favorites]
Curators should frame a copy of their correspondence with their lawyers, displaying it as an artwork in the gallery under the title "fraud around and find out."
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 2:33 PM on September 28, 2021 [25 favorites]
Curators should frame a copy of their correspondence with their lawyers, displaying it as an artwork in the gallery under the title "fraud around and find out."
That's not particularly clever. The museum is getting what they want out of this: a lot of publicity (we're talking about it here for instance) and quite likely people who will want to visit to see the artwork in person - more so than if the artist had done something more expected with stacks of bills. And they get their money back Jan 16th, the same as if it had been used in a more mundane artwork. And people reading about it get their novelty/anti-capitalist itch scratched by this. It's a win all around.
I'm not really much into troll-y art but this is fine. Not the deepest thing ever, but fine.
posted by splitpeasoup at 2:54 PM on September 28, 2021 [15 favorites]
That's not particularly clever. The museum is getting what they want out of this: a lot of publicity (we're talking about it here for instance) and quite likely people who will want to visit to see the artwork in person - more so than if the artist had done something more expected with stacks of bills. And they get their money back Jan 16th, the same as if it had been used in a more mundane artwork. And people reading about it get their novelty/anti-capitalist itch scratched by this. It's a win all around.
I'm not really much into troll-y art but this is fine. Not the deepest thing ever, but fine.
posted by splitpeasoup at 2:54 PM on September 28, 2021 [15 favorites]
Haaning is not in breach of contract until early next year; as museum director Lasse Andersson told CBS via email, "the initial contract says we will have the money back on January 16th 2022." But wow, the painting commission, plus materials for the painting:
Haaning was asked to recreate two of his previous works: 2010's "An Average Danish Annual Income" and "An Average Austrian Annual Income," first exhibited in 2007. Both used actual cash to show the average incomes of the two countries, according to a news release from the artist. In addition to compensation for the work, Haaning was also given bank notes to use in the work, museum director Lasse Andersson told CBS News via email. Their contract even stated the museum would give Haaning an additional 6,000 euros to update the work, if needed, Andersson said.
[Haaning is consistent in his choice of frame, if nothing else.]
The museum director is on record as laughing when he saw Haaning's blank canvases. The paintings were meant for the current show, so free press, okay, but this part is howlingly funny: The exhibition is called 'Work it Out' and runs Sept. 24 - Jan. 16: "Self-optimisation, readiness for change, stress, efficiency, bureaucracy and increased digitalisation. These are some of the topics addressed in the exhibition 'Work it Out'. An exhibition that focuses on the future of work."
posted by Iris Gambol at 2:56 PM on September 28, 2021 [9 favorites]
Haaning was asked to recreate two of his previous works: 2010's "An Average Danish Annual Income" and "An Average Austrian Annual Income," first exhibited in 2007. Both used actual cash to show the average incomes of the two countries, according to a news release from the artist. In addition to compensation for the work, Haaning was also given bank notes to use in the work, museum director Lasse Andersson told CBS News via email. Their contract even stated the museum would give Haaning an additional 6,000 euros to update the work, if needed, Andersson said.
[Haaning is consistent in his choice of frame, if nothing else.]
The museum director is on record as laughing when he saw Haaning's blank canvases. The paintings were meant for the current show, so free press, okay, but this part is howlingly funny: The exhibition is called 'Work it Out' and runs Sept. 24 - Jan. 16: "Self-optimisation, readiness for change, stress, efficiency, bureaucracy and increased digitalisation. These are some of the topics addressed in the exhibition 'Work it Out'. An exhibition that focuses on the future of work."
posted by Iris Gambol at 2:56 PM on September 28, 2021 [9 favorites]
Lazy. They could have at least stenciled “FOR $84,000” on the canvas.
posted by zamboni at 3:11 PM on September 28, 2021 [5 favorites]
posted by zamboni at 3:11 PM on September 28, 2021 [5 favorites]
I feel like Billy Joe and Bobbie Sue have a real case for infringement here...
posted by slkinsey at 3:15 PM on September 28, 2021 [16 favorites]
posted by slkinsey at 3:15 PM on September 28, 2021 [16 favorites]
I keep the two canvases in its original packaging, they're worth more that way.
posted by clavdivs at 3:34 PM on September 28, 2021 [10 favorites]
posted by clavdivs at 3:34 PM on September 28, 2021 [10 favorites]
Come on guys, it's one of those nifty NFTs, dontcha see? NOT FUCKING THERE
posted by chavenet at 3:36 PM on September 28, 2021 [13 favorites]
posted by chavenet at 3:36 PM on September 28, 2021 [13 favorites]
The smart thing for Haaning to have done would be to have put the money in the bank when he got it and let it sit there and accumulate interest. Then on Jan 16, he withdraws the money, returns the $84,000 and keeps the interest. That way he would not have been in violation of contract and would have made more money on the deal. Lawyers/accountants, let me know if this is not actually legal.
posted by dannyboybell at 3:51 PM on September 28, 2021 [5 favorites]
posted by dannyboybell at 3:51 PM on September 28, 2021 [5 favorites]
They could have at least stenciled “FOR $84,000” on the canvas.
Nah; per the exhibition description: Maybe it's time to put an end to old beliefs and rethink how and how much we go to work?
posted by Iris Gambol at 3:51 PM on September 28, 2021 [1 favorite]
Nah; per the exhibition description: Maybe it's time to put an end to old beliefs and rethink how and how much we go to work?
posted by Iris Gambol at 3:51 PM on September 28, 2021 [1 favorite]
They just need to get Rabo Karabekian to explain what it really is, and triple the price.
posted by davelog at 3:54 PM on September 28, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by davelog at 3:54 PM on September 28, 2021 [3 favorites]
And somewhere Duchamp smiles.
posted by Capt. Renault at 4:06 PM on September 28, 2021 [12 favorites]
posted by Capt. Renault at 4:06 PM on September 28, 2021 [12 favorites]
Now all the gallery has to do is milk it, publicize it as much as possible so that arty types will go into the gallery and look at those blank canvases and nod sagely, thinking "Yes, this is indeed art." And the gallery makes their money back (and then some).
Reminds me of the artist back in the 1920s who just painted some words on a toilet and it became a sensation. One of many of these types of scams.
posted by zardoz at 4:11 PM on September 28, 2021 [1 favorite]
Reminds me of the artist back in the 1920s who just painted some words on a toilet and it became a sensation. One of many of these types of scams.
posted by zardoz at 4:11 PM on September 28, 2021 [1 favorite]
This is a great example of Scalzi's "the failure mode of clever is asshole".
Remember the $120,000 banana that was taped to a gallery wall that some guy ate and he left the peel behind retitling the work "starving artist"? That was really clever and seems to have been well-received.
I'm sure this artist thought he was doing something similarly clever, but the dude absconded with $87,000 of art supplies that weren't his and tried to justify it with a cheeky title. What an asshole.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 4:14 PM on September 28, 2021 [4 favorites]
Remember the $120,000 banana that was taped to a gallery wall that some guy ate and he left the peel behind retitling the work "starving artist"? That was really clever and seems to have been well-received.
I'm sure this artist thought he was doing something similarly clever, but the dude absconded with $87,000 of art supplies that weren't his and tried to justify it with a cheeky title. What an asshole.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 4:14 PM on September 28, 2021 [4 favorites]
Sometimes you procrastinate and procrastinate and procrastinate and then, the night before the project is due, inspiration strikes.
posted by Going To Maine at 4:17 PM on September 28, 2021 [38 favorites]
posted by Going To Maine at 4:17 PM on September 28, 2021 [38 favorites]
It's not big enough to be great. Burn a million dollars (or a million Quid), then get back to us.
posted by djseafood at 4:18 PM on September 28, 2021 [9 favorites]
posted by djseafood at 4:18 PM on September 28, 2021 [9 favorites]
Came for the "bananas" reference and was not dissapointed.
posted by sjswitzer at 4:42 PM on September 28, 2021 [4 favorites]
posted by sjswitzer at 4:42 PM on September 28, 2021 [4 favorites]
Sometimes you procrastinate and procrastinate and procrastinate and then, the night before the project is due, inspiration strikes.
"The rules don't actually say that a dog can't paint the canvases..."
posted by darkstar at 4:46 PM on September 28, 2021 [7 favorites]
"The rules don't actually say that a dog can't paint the canvases..."
posted by darkstar at 4:46 PM on September 28, 2021 [7 favorites]
There's something in this type of shenanigan that needs a certain amount of money - not too much, not too little.
$84,000 is enough to make it exciting, but not enough to make it offensive. In my narrow life I can still think of projects at my job or public works which have spent more for markedly less insight or interest.
posted by solarion at 5:15 PM on September 28, 2021 [10 favorites]
$84,000 is enough to make it exciting, but not enough to make it offensive. In my narrow life I can still think of projects at my job or public works which have spent more for markedly less insight or interest.
posted by solarion at 5:15 PM on September 28, 2021 [10 favorites]
The smart thing for Haaning to have done would be to have put the money in the bank when he got it and let it sit there and accumulate
In the art world (and, increasingly, what i suppose I must call the "real" world) money is much less valuable than attention. This is why the museum wanted him to put the money in the frame in the first place rather than one of their interns who would have probably done just as good a job as him at putting an amount of un-destroyable money in a frame.
But now both the museum and the artist have a good amount of attention, and he could probably sell an NFT of a picture of the empty canvas for way more than the 84k would accumulate in interest - part of why there's so much money sloshing around the art world in the first place is low interest rates making art a not too terrible vehicle for laund...er, investing in.
posted by Jon Mitchell at 5:31 PM on September 28, 2021 [8 favorites]
In the art world (and, increasingly, what i suppose I must call the "real" world) money is much less valuable than attention. This is why the museum wanted him to put the money in the frame in the first place rather than one of their interns who would have probably done just as good a job as him at putting an amount of un-destroyable money in a frame.
But now both the museum and the artist have a good amount of attention, and he could probably sell an NFT of a picture of the empty canvas for way more than the 84k would accumulate in interest - part of why there's so much money sloshing around the art world in the first place is low interest rates making art a not too terrible vehicle for laund...er, investing in.
posted by Jon Mitchell at 5:31 PM on September 28, 2021 [8 favorites]
The museum exchanged money for art & that's what they got. It's like a consensual performance of grift for the sake of using art to say fuck you. I kind of like it. It's better than people killing each other. That's how I feel about it. (Which, since it's art, that's what we're here for.) I had some emotions stimulated about a symbolic act.
posted by bleep at 5:36 PM on September 28, 2021 [8 favorites]
posted by bleep at 5:36 PM on September 28, 2021 [8 favorites]
METAFILTER: It's better than people killing each other.
posted by philip-random at 6:09 PM on September 28, 2021 [6 favorites]
posted by philip-random at 6:09 PM on September 28, 2021 [6 favorites]
The real Danish artistes.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 6:19 PM on September 28, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 6:19 PM on September 28, 2021 [2 favorites]
Lie down with conceptual artists; wake up with fleece.
posted by sjswitzer at 6:22 PM on September 28, 2021 [24 favorites]
posted by sjswitzer at 6:22 PM on September 28, 2021 [24 favorites]
This is That also had invisible conceptual art sculptures.
posted by ovvl at 6:34 PM on September 28, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by ovvl at 6:34 PM on September 28, 2021 [1 favorite]
I feel like Billy Joe and Bobbie Sue have a real case for infringement here...
Meh. They were just sitting around the house, getting high, and watching the tube.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 7:57 PM on September 28, 2021 [3 favorites]
Meh. They were just sitting around the house, getting high, and watching the tube.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 7:57 PM on September 28, 2021 [3 favorites]
And then you get an artist
He says he doesn't want to paint at all
He takes an empty canvas
And stickin' it on the wall
The birds of feather, all the phonies and all of the fakes
While the dealers they get together
And they decide who gets the breaks
posted by MrGuilt at 8:28 PM on September 28, 2021 [3 favorites]
People get mad about this kind of art, as if it's some kind of fraud, and not "real" art like a painting of a bowl of fruit. What's a fuckin' bowl of fruit got to do with anything? THIS is art.
posted by Sing Or Swim at 8:58 PM on September 28, 2021 [8 favorites]
posted by Sing Or Swim at 8:58 PM on September 28, 2021 [8 favorites]
The museum and the artist are colluding with each other and a credulous, click-hungry press to generate free publicity. In all probability, there never was any $84,000 to begin with, and if there was, the artist isn't in breach of contract yet and probably will produce the artwork they were commissioned for. But there's no "fraud" here aside from the usual kind you see in the fine art world.
It's 2021. Be cynical about "news" that makes for a good story to tell.
posted by AlSweigart at 9:38 PM on September 28, 2021 [4 favorites]
It's 2021. Be cynical about "news" that makes for a good story to tell.
posted by AlSweigart at 9:38 PM on September 28, 2021 [4 favorites]
What's a fuckin' bowl of fruit got to do with anything? THIS is art
An early lesson along the palisade of art is that it's not the thing, but shape of which the head you wrap around it.
[golf clap]
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 11:19 PM on September 28, 2021
An early lesson along the palisade of art is that it's not the thing, but shape of which the head you wrap around it.
[golf clap]
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 11:19 PM on September 28, 2021
djseafood: "It's not big enough to be great. Burn a million dollars (or a million Quid), then get back to us."
Done and done.
posted by chavenet at 12:34 AM on September 29, 2021 [3 favorites]
Done and done.
posted by chavenet at 12:34 AM on September 29, 2021 [3 favorites]
I have painted and drawn seriously for roughly 3/4 of my life. Perhaps it's time to rethink my enterprise as an artist..............
If only I can figure out how to incorporate a NFT into this process, then auction it, and watch slick, fat greenbacks roll in.
posted by Phlegmco(tm) at 1:41 AM on September 29, 2021
If only I can figure out how to incorporate a NFT into this process, then auction it, and watch slick, fat greenbacks roll in.
posted by Phlegmco(tm) at 1:41 AM on September 29, 2021
"Keep your hands off my kiln!"
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 1:49 AM on September 29, 2021
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 1:49 AM on September 29, 2021
“And we’re going to start at the beginning, before you were a picture of a bowl of fruit, when you were a picture of… nothing.”
posted by oulipian at 4:10 AM on September 29, 2021
posted by oulipian at 4:10 AM on September 29, 2021
Genius, I tells ya.
posted by lordrunningclam at 4:58 AM on September 29, 2021
posted by lordrunningclam at 4:58 AM on September 29, 2021
Next they're gonna claim that 4′33″ isn't music.
posted by Halloween Jack at 5:36 AM on September 29, 2021 [4 favorites]
posted by Halloween Jack at 5:36 AM on September 29, 2021 [4 favorites]
The museum and the artist are colluding with each other and a credulous, click-hungry press to generate free publicity. In all probability, there never was any $84,000 to begin with, and if there was, the artist isn't in breach of contract yet and probably will produce the artwork they were commissioned for. But there's no "fraud" here aside from the usual kind you see in the fine art world.
It's 2021. Be cynical about "news" that makes for a good story to tell.
I can assure you that this came as a huge surprise to the museum, and that the outcome is not yet clear. Also, there is no way the museum can reach a profit from this that matches the expense. This is all in a small, remote city.
And I think it is all hilarious in so many ways I can't list them all.
posted by mumimor at 6:35 AM on September 29, 2021 [3 favorites]
It's 2021. Be cynical about "news" that makes for a good story to tell.
I can assure you that this came as a huge surprise to the museum, and that the outcome is not yet clear. Also, there is no way the museum can reach a profit from this that matches the expense. This is all in a small, remote city.
And I think it is all hilarious in so many ways I can't list them all.
posted by mumimor at 6:35 AM on September 29, 2021 [3 favorites]
the dude absconded with $87,000 of art supplies that weren't his and tried to justify it with a cheeky title.
More like the museum *loaned* him $87,000 of art supplies.
As long as he returns the money in January as agreed, he hasn't absconded with anything.
Might fall under malicious compliance, but commissioning an artist is literally giving them creative license.
I, for one, think it's hysterical, and think the museum should license 4'33 as musical accompaniment.
posted by cheshyre at 7:02 AM on September 29, 2021 [3 favorites]
More like the museum *loaned* him $87,000 of art supplies.
As long as he returns the money in January as agreed, he hasn't absconded with anything.
Might fall under malicious compliance, but commissioning an artist is literally giving them creative license.
I, for one, think it's hysterical, and think the museum should license 4'33 as musical accompaniment.
posted by cheshyre at 7:02 AM on September 29, 2021 [3 favorites]
If only I can figure out how to incorporate a NFT into this process, then auction it, and watch slick, fat greenbacks roll in.
A recursive NFT, where one NFT is of nothing, the second is an NFT of the first, the third of the second, and on and on.
posted by Going To Maine at 9:36 AM on September 29, 2021 [1 favorite]
A recursive NFT, where one NFT is of nothing, the second is an NFT of the first, the third of the second, and on and on.
posted by Going To Maine at 9:36 AM on September 29, 2021 [1 favorite]
Reminds me of the artist back in the 1920s who just painted some words on a toilet and it became a sensation. One of many of these types of scams.
And somewhere Duchamp flips the bird.
Dadaism wasn't a scam, jfc. I know late capitalism has ruined so many things for us, but can we please resist the urge to paint a revisionist history of things that have nothing to do with the sorry state of the art world we currently find ourselves in.
posted by fight or flight at 2:39 PM on September 29, 2021 [13 favorites]
And somewhere Duchamp flips the bird.
Dadaism wasn't a scam, jfc. I know late capitalism has ruined so many things for us, but can we please resist the urge to paint a revisionist history of things that have nothing to do with the sorry state of the art world we currently find ourselves in.
posted by fight or flight at 2:39 PM on September 29, 2021 [13 favorites]
I mean at least Banksy makes some bullshit even if it self-destructs.
posted by spitbull at 4:54 PM on September 29, 2021
posted by spitbull at 4:54 PM on September 29, 2021
Also Billie Joe and Bobby Sue would totally be Instagram influencers now.
posted by spitbull at 4:56 PM on September 29, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by spitbull at 4:56 PM on September 29, 2021 [2 favorites]
(Ctrl-F, KLF)
No love for the KLF? They burnt a million pounds... or did they...
posted by alex4pt at 3:02 AM on September 30, 2021
No love for the KLF? They burnt a million pounds... or did they...
posted by alex4pt at 3:02 AM on September 30, 2021
This reminds me of that one episode of My Two Dads, where Nicole got a failing grade on some art project because she just handed in a blank canvas and named it "A Void" or "Emptiness" or some lazy shit like that.
Paul Reiser, being the square he is, is all like, "yeah, I get it," but the artist dad with the beard is like, "no way man, that's a totally valid artistic expression." Then artist dad goes to meet with the teacher and ends up getting together with her, and then Nicole gets pissed.
Then they decide to end this charade once and for all, get a DNA test and find out Nicole's biological dad is really a UPS driver that made some extra stops on his route (wink wink). Things get super awkward and Paul Reiser moves out, gets a place in the Village, marries Helen Hunt, and never talks to Nicole or the bearded artist dad again.
I haven't thought about this in over 30 years. The details are a bit hazy, but that's basically what happened.
posted by chillmost at 3:31 AM on September 30, 2021 [3 favorites]
Paul Reiser, being the square he is, is all like, "yeah, I get it," but the artist dad with the beard is like, "no way man, that's a totally valid artistic expression." Then artist dad goes to meet with the teacher and ends up getting together with her, and then Nicole gets pissed.
Then they decide to end this charade once and for all, get a DNA test and find out Nicole's biological dad is really a UPS driver that made some extra stops on his route (wink wink). Things get super awkward and Paul Reiser moves out, gets a place in the Village, marries Helen Hunt, and never talks to Nicole or the bearded artist dad again.
I haven't thought about this in over 30 years. The details are a bit hazy, but that's basically what happened.
posted by chillmost at 3:31 AM on September 30, 2021 [3 favorites]
« Older chunky cubby chasers | How To Not Suck At Writing Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by chavenet at 2:29 PM on September 28, 2021 [8 favorites]