I have found this art stunt to be very interesting in discussing what art means, can do and where the line between art and crime can sometimes be fluid. It is hard to deny that doing the stunt...
I have found this art stunt to be very interesting in discussing what art means, can do and where the line between art and crime can sometimes be fluid. It is hard to deny that doing the stunt like this, he has created a ton of coverage for this than it likely would have otherwise. And the best art is not just something pretty to look at, but something that makes us think and can start a public debate - like this did.
It raises some moral questions about what the artwork is and what is being payed for. Because the museum did put up his now empty frame on display. Their reasoning was that it was a stunt, and he would return the money afterwards. Once he refused to do that they sued and their demand was met at the trial. Though the artist has already said the money is long gone. And he says that he will "undo" his work if he paid the money back.
While I admire his stunt and it is certainly one of the artworks I have paid any sort of attention to in years, from a regular moral standpoint, I don't think you should able to get away with theft simply by claiming it is part of an art installation.
Part of the point of his work is that breach of contract is not theft, it is breach of contract. I think your comment highlights an interesting double standard - when an artist does it, it's...
from a regular moral standpoint, I don't think you should able to get away with theft simply by claiming it is part of an art installation.
Part of the point of his work is that breach of contract is not theft, it is breach of contract.
I think your comment highlights an interesting double standard - when an artist does it, it's theft, but when a corporation does is, it's just business. In the latter case, somehow the moral component has been separated from the act. Veeery clever on the part of the corporations.
I also think he missed a "4D chess" opportunity to do some kind of "invisible ink" work on the canvases, but only reveal its existence during the lawsuit.
The act of not doing what he was contracted to do, recreate previous works, is breach of contract. Refusing to return the money is theft. He likely missed the "4D chess" opportunity because...
The act of not doing what he was contracted to do, recreate previous works, is breach of contract. Refusing to return the money is theft.
He likely missed the "4D chess" opportunity because slapping a cheeky label on an empty frame doesn't require much thought and, as is extremely common, he didn't put much into this either.
I recognize that immediately discounting controversial art is a bad idea, and that if a piece of work has made you think then it is art. But i still think this is a grift, post modernism be...
I recognize that immediately discounting controversial art is a bad idea, and that if a piece of work has made you think then it is art.
But i still think this is a grift, post modernism be damned. This is neither an original concept nor particularly interesting as he himself said that he would have made it until he felt shafted that he only got the commission he asked for.
Fuck him, unless the piece generates the revenue the museum desired and they as the client are satisfied with the piece then he is obviously accountable for his grift. If there is more planned with some kind of exhibition of the museum's civil case against him then thats cool, transformative, and trans-media but for now its a simple case of commission remorse.
I have found this art stunt to be very interesting in discussing what art means, can do and where the line between art and crime can sometimes be fluid. It is hard to deny that doing the stunt like this, he has created a ton of coverage for this than it likely would have otherwise. And the best art is not just something pretty to look at, but something that makes us think and can start a public debate - like this did.
It raises some moral questions about what the artwork is and what is being payed for. Because the museum did put up his now empty frame on display. Their reasoning was that it was a stunt, and he would return the money afterwards. Once he refused to do that they sued and their demand was met at the trial. Though the artist has already said the money is long gone. And he says that he will "undo" his work if he paid the money back.
While I admire his stunt and it is certainly one of the artworks I have paid any sort of attention to in years, from a regular moral standpoint, I don't think you should able to get away with theft simply by claiming it is part of an art installation.
Part of the point of his work is that breach of contract is not theft, it is breach of contract.
I think your comment highlights an interesting double standard - when an artist does it, it's theft, but when a corporation does is, it's just business. In the latter case, somehow the moral component has been separated from the act. Veeery clever on the part of the corporations.
I also think he missed a "4D chess" opportunity to do some kind of "invisible ink" work on the canvases, but only reveal its existence during the lawsuit.
The act of not doing what he was contracted to do, recreate previous works, is breach of contract. Refusing to return the money is theft.
He likely missed the "4D chess" opportunity because slapping a cheeky label on an empty frame doesn't require much thought and, as is extremely common, he didn't put much into this either.
I recognize that immediately discounting controversial art is a bad idea, and that if a piece of work has made you think then it is art.
But i still think this is a grift, post modernism be damned. This is neither an original concept nor particularly interesting as he himself said that he would have made it until he felt shafted that he only got the commission he asked for.
Fuck him, unless the piece generates the revenue the museum desired and they as the client are satisfied with the piece then he is obviously accountable for his grift. If there is more planned with some kind of exhibition of the museum's civil case against him then thats cool, transformative, and trans-media but for now its a simple case of commission remorse.
Previous discussions on this topic can be found here and here.
Ah completely missed that it was already posted in ~arts