9
votes
Danish artist Jens Haaning is refusing to pay over €70,000 back to a local art museum in protest at what he called 'miserable' working conditions and low pay
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Title
- Danish artist protests low pay by taking €70,000 of museum's cash
- Published
- Sep 28 2021
Okay, that's legitimately hilarious.
I'm not familiar with Danish law, but somehow I doubt this will amount to a fruitful legal strategy.
To engage with this work a bit more: I'm not sure that I buy into Haaning's thesis. Despite Haaning's claim that he would need to pay out-of-pocket create the piece, Haaning was actually paid roughly $3,900 for his work. Later Haaning calculated that this amount would be insufficient to create the work he was hired to make. However, that miscalculation seems entirely Haaning's own fault, not the museum's. In fact, despite Haaning's attempt to paint the museum as some progenitor of capitalism, the Kunsten museum is also a victim of the devaluation of art under capitalism. Stealing from (or as Haaning would have it, "breaching contract with") a museum feels a bit like stealing from a library. From another article [1]:
Regardless, even if we accept that the commissioned piece might be more costly to create than the originally estimated figure $3,900, I seriously doubt the delivered piece would exceed $3,900 to create -- surely Haaning could've returned some of the total grant to the museum, perhaps the total amount minus the cost of materials and whatever he thought his time was worth. As is, Haaning's artwork feels less so idealistic and more so opportunistic, less so art and more so grift.
[1] "Danish artist delivers empty frames for $84k as low pay protest." The Guardian
I don't know about legality, but from everything about postmodern art I learned from my postmodern friends, the artistic reasoning is both sound and defensible.
That would actually make it pretty cool. Pure dedication.
That was my gut feeling after reading both the Euronews and Guardian articles. It felt performative. The lawsuit has brought the headlines and eyes onto the piece, along with all the ensuing discussion – surely something both artist and gallery are rather happy about.
Sure, I would agree -- I harbor no doubts that Haaning's exhibit is art, and I don't consider it difficult to defend as such. However, I would counter that it's bad art. It effectively conveys its message (by effectively stealing from the museum) but the message it conveys seems to be at odds with reality (should we fault the museum for exploiting the artist when the artist appears to be the one at fault for miscalculating his costs?).
Well, aren't con artists, well, artists? :P
Heh, maybe! Now I'm curious about the origin of that term.
Con artist is from “con man” which is short for confidence man.
The idea is that you have someone building up a persons confidence in some sort of investment (which can also be straight-up gambling) so they take the bait even though they know it’s a bad deal.
If that sounds like I’m describing what a regular salesperson does, that’s entirely on purpose.
Thanks for the response! I actually was familiar with the origin for con man (I performed a cursory search before I left my comment), though I'm sure others will appreciate your explanation. What I couldn't quite figure out, however, was the jump from con man to con artist.
Persuasion tricks are an art in itself. Isn't that, in some measure, the work of the actor? Or, more specifically, the magician, or the mentalist? They "sell" some kind of fantasy to the audience. In some cases, art and swindle are one and the same.