一名藝術(shù)家在一場漫長的官司中敗給了丹麥博物館,原因是他提交了兩幅空白畫布,并拿走了原本應(yīng)出現(xiàn)在作品中的現(xiàn)金,而且這些現(xiàn)金都是這家博物館借給他的。
哥本哈根法庭下令丹麥藝術(shù)家延斯·哈寧向昆斯滕現(xiàn)代藝術(shù)博物館(Kunsten Museum of Modern Art)支付50萬丹麥克朗的罰款(約7.65萬美元),原因在于他厚顏無恥的愚蠢行為引發(fā)了一場持續(xù)了近兩年的官司,英國廣播公司(BBC)、美國國家公共電臺(NPR)均對此進(jìn)行了報道。
這些作品基于哈寧最初在2007年和2010年問世的兩件藝術(shù)作品——《普通奧地利人年收入》(An Average Austrian Annual Income )和《普通丹麥人年收入》(An Average Danish Annual Income)。這兩件作品展示了普通丹麥和奧地利工人的薪資,而且其中包含了與薪資數(shù)額等值的銀行紙幣。
奧爾堡博物館委托哈寧為其展覽“Work It Out”重新創(chuàng)作這些藝術(shù)作品。該展覽旨在讓參觀者反思其對自身職業(yè)的訴求,而且2021年展覽使用的這些作品原本計劃含有共計53.4萬克朗的現(xiàn)金。
《藝術(shù)報》(The Art Newspaper)2021年的報道稱,哈寧在創(chuàng)作最初的兩幅作品時是從銀行借的錢。在這次委托中,博物館借給了他53.4萬克朗的全款。
然而,博物館在收到并打開重新創(chuàng)作的原始作品之后,卻只看到了兩張空白畫布,上面寫著新作的名字:《拿錢,跑路》(Take the Money and Run)。
哈寧對丹麥媒體dr.dk表示,新的藝術(shù)作品旨在凸顯人們薪資過低,并鼓勵收銀員本著同樣的精神,從收銀機(jī)里拿錢,然后跑路。
根據(jù)合同條款,在展會結(jié)束后,這些錢應(yīng)歸還給博物館,但哈寧提前便明確表示這是不可能的事。果然,這位藝術(shù)家的確把錢拿走之后就跑路了。
哈寧在2022年1月合約終止日期之前對dr.dk說:“作品的本意就是,我拿了他們的錢。”
他對dr.dk說,以最初的形式來創(chuàng)作作品會導(dǎo)致2.5萬克朗的資金短缺,此舉激發(fā)了他的反叛心理。
博物館總監(jiān)拉瑟·安德森對dr.dk說,盡管作品存在一定的藝術(shù)價值,但哈寧無權(quán)保留這筆資金,因?yàn)閰f(xié)議僅包含1萬克朗的藝術(shù)家報酬以及6000克朗的費(fèi)用。
安德森此前對《衛(wèi)報》(Guardian)說:“我們并不是一個有錢的博物館。我們必須認(rèn)真思考資金的花費(fèi)方式,而且只能量入為出?!?/p>
不過,NordTV報道稱,哈寧認(rèn)為,借助該作品兩年期間帶來的宣傳效應(yīng),博物館所賺的錢超過了50萬克朗。
確實(shí),昆斯滕在其網(wǎng)站上表揚(yáng)了所提交的作品,認(rèn)為其創(chuàng)建了“藝術(shù)界的批評機(jī)制”,同時還映射我們社會中的宏觀構(gòu)架。
當(dāng)時,博物館總監(jiān)安德森也承認(rèn)作品也有其有趣之處。
安德森對BBC說:“他讓管理層感到不悅,也讓我略有不快,但我也開心地笑了,因?yàn)樽髌氛娴暮茉溨C?!?/p>
盡管哥本哈根法庭最終站在了博物館這一邊,但法庭確實(shí)從總額中減去了哈寧的費(fèi)用以及不斷增加的成本。不過,該裁定讓藝術(shù)家背上了大量債務(wù)。
他對dr.dk說:“這對于我的作品來說是好事,但也讓我陷入了無法應(yīng)付的局面,我確實(shí)也不知道該何去何從。”
博物館代表并未立即回復(fù)《財富》雜志的置評請求。
藝術(shù)家在設(shè)計作品時與博物館策劃展覽時的愿景往往都會出現(xiàn)分歧,而且由來已久。
最近的一個案例莫過于班克西2018年的作品《垃圾桶中的愛》(Love Is in the Bin)。這位神秘藝術(shù)家的原創(chuàng)作品《拿著氣球的女孩》(Girl With Balloon)起初在倫敦蘇富比拍賣行以100萬英鎊(約120萬美元)出售。
這位買家并不知道的是,一旦確認(rèn)中標(biāo)買家之后,班克西的這幅畫將進(jìn)入自毀模式,也就是被其自身的框架攪碎。然而,這幅畫以新面貌回歸了拍賣會,并售出了令人咂舌的1600萬英鎊。(財富中文網(wǎng))
譯者:馮豐
審校:夏林
一名藝術(shù)家在一場漫長的官司中敗給了丹麥博物館,原因是他提交了兩幅空白畫布,并拿走了原本應(yīng)出現(xiàn)在作品中的現(xiàn)金,而且這些現(xiàn)金都是這家博物館借給他的。
哥本哈根法庭下令丹麥藝術(shù)家延斯·哈寧向昆斯滕現(xiàn)代藝術(shù)博物館(Kunsten Museum of Modern Art)支付50萬丹麥克朗的罰款(約7.65萬美元),原因在于他厚顏無恥的愚蠢行為引發(fā)了一場持續(xù)了近兩年的官司,英國廣播公司(BBC)、美國國家公共電臺(NPR)均對此進(jìn)行了報道。
這些作品基于哈寧最初在2007年和2010年問世的兩件藝術(shù)作品——《普通奧地利人年收入》(An Average Austrian Annual Income )和《普通丹麥人年收入》(An Average Danish Annual Income)。這兩件作品展示了普通丹麥和奧地利工人的薪資,而且其中包含了與薪資數(shù)額等值的銀行紙幣。
奧爾堡博物館委托哈寧為其展覽“Work It Out”重新創(chuàng)作這些藝術(shù)作品。該展覽旨在讓參觀者反思其對自身職業(yè)的訴求,而且2021年展覽使用的這些作品原本計劃含有共計53.4萬克朗的現(xiàn)金。
《藝術(shù)報》(The Art Newspaper)2021年的報道稱,哈寧在創(chuàng)作最初的兩幅作品時是從銀行借的錢。在這次委托中,博物館借給了他53.4萬克朗的全款。
然而,博物館在收到并打開重新創(chuàng)作的原始作品之后,卻只看到了兩張空白畫布,上面寫著新作的名字:《拿錢,跑路》(Take the Money and Run)。
哈寧對丹麥媒體dr.dk表示,新的藝術(shù)作品旨在凸顯人們薪資過低,并鼓勵收銀員本著同樣的精神,從收銀機(jī)里拿錢,然后跑路。
根據(jù)合同條款,在展會結(jié)束后,這些錢應(yīng)歸還給博物館,但哈寧提前便明確表示這是不可能的事。果然,這位藝術(shù)家的確把錢拿走之后就跑路了。
哈寧在2022年1月合約終止日期之前對dr.dk說:“作品的本意就是,我拿了他們的錢?!?/p>
他對dr.dk說,以最初的形式來創(chuàng)作作品會導(dǎo)致2.5萬克朗的資金短缺,此舉激發(fā)了他的反叛心理。
博物館總監(jiān)拉瑟·安德森對dr.dk說,盡管作品存在一定的藝術(shù)價值,但哈寧無權(quán)保留這筆資金,因?yàn)閰f(xié)議僅包含1萬克朗的藝術(shù)家報酬以及6000克朗的費(fèi)用。
安德森此前對《衛(wèi)報》(Guardian)說:“我們并不是一個有錢的博物館。我們必須認(rèn)真思考資金的花費(fèi)方式,而且只能量入為出?!?/p>
不過,NordTV報道稱,哈寧認(rèn)為,借助該作品兩年期間帶來的宣傳效應(yīng),博物館所賺的錢超過了50萬克朗。
確實(shí),昆斯滕在其網(wǎng)站上表揚(yáng)了所提交的作品,認(rèn)為其創(chuàng)建了“藝術(shù)界的批評機(jī)制”,同時還映射我們社會中的宏觀構(gòu)架。
當(dāng)時,博物館總監(jiān)安德森也承認(rèn)作品也有其有趣之處。
安德森對BBC說:“他讓管理層感到不悅,也讓我略有不快,但我也開心地笑了,因?yàn)樽髌氛娴暮茉溨C?!?/p>
盡管哥本哈根法庭最終站在了博物館這一邊,但法庭確實(shí)從總額中減去了哈寧的費(fèi)用以及不斷增加的成本。不過,該裁定讓藝術(shù)家背上了大量債務(wù)。
他對dr.dk說:“這對于我的作品來說是好事,但也讓我陷入了無法應(yīng)付的局面,我確實(shí)也不知道該何去何從?!?/p>
博物館代表并未立即回復(fù)《財富》雜志的置評請求。
藝術(shù)家在設(shè)計作品時與博物館策劃展覽時的愿景往往都會出現(xiàn)分歧,而且由來已久。
最近的一個案例莫過于班克西2018年的作品《垃圾桶中的愛》(Love Is in the Bin)。這位神秘藝術(shù)家的原創(chuàng)作品《拿著氣球的女孩》(Girl With Balloon)起初在倫敦蘇富比拍賣行以100萬英鎊(約120萬美元)出售。
這位買家并不知道的是,一旦確認(rèn)中標(biāo)買家之后,班克西的這幅畫將進(jìn)入自毀模式,也就是被其自身的框架攪碎。然而,這幅畫以新面貌回歸了拍賣會,并售出了令人咂舌的1600萬英鎊。(財富中文網(wǎng))
譯者:馮豐
審校:夏林
An artist has lost his lengthy battle with a Danish museum after submitting two blank canvases and taking off with the loaned cash that was meant to be displayed inside the artworks.
Danish artist Jens Haaning was ordered by a Copenhagen court to pay the Kunsten Museum of Modern Art 500,000 Danish kroner (around $76,500) after his audacious stunt set off a nearly two-year legal fight, media outlets including the BBC and NPR reported.
The pieces were based on two artworks Haaning originally debuted in 2007 and 2010—called An Average Austrian Annual Income and An Average Danish Annual Income, respectively—which were a comment on the salary of the average Danish and Austrian workers, and contained bank notes totaling those sums.
The museum in Aalborg had commissioned Haaning to re-create those artworks for its exhibit Work It Out, which asked visitors to question what they wanted from their careers, and were meant to have held a combined 534,000 kroner in cash for a 2021 exhibition.
Haaning had taken out a bank loan to create his original pieces, but on this occasion the museum offered to lend him the full amount of 534,000 kroner, The Art Newspaper reported in 2021.
But instead of receiving a re-creation of the original works, the museum opened the artwork to find two blank canvases with a new collective name: Take the Money and Run.
Haaning told Danish outlet dr.dk that the new artwork was meant to highlight how people were underpaid for their work and encouraged checkout staff to take from the cash register and run in the same spirit.
The agreement in the contract was for the money to be returned to the museum when the exhibition ended, something Haaning made clear in advance wouldn’t be happening. Instead, the artist indeed took the money and ran.
“The work is that I have taken their money,” Haaning told dr.dk prior to the contract’s end date of January 2022.
He told dr.dk that the piece in its original form would have left him down 25,000 kroner, inspiring his revolt.
Museum director Lasse Andersson told dr.dk Haaning was not entitled to keep the money despite its perceived artistic value, as the agreement included only a 10,000 kroner artist fee and 6,000 kroner for expenses.
“We are not a wealthy museum,” Andersson previously told the Guardian. “We have to think carefully about how we spend our funds, and we don’t spend more than we can afford.”
Haaning, though, argued that the museum had made much more than 500,000 kroner from the two-year publicity drive the piece had created, NordTV reported.
Indeed, Kunsten praises the submitted piece on its website, arguing it acts as “a critique of mechanisms within the art world, but also points to larger structures in our society.”
At the time, museum director Andersson admitted to seeing the funny side of the submission.
“He stirred up my curatorial staff and he also stirred me up a bit, but I also had a laugh because it was really humoristic,” Andersson told the BBC.
While the Copenhagen court eventually sided with the museum, it did subtract Haaning’s fee and the mounting cost from the sum. Still, the decision leaves the artist in a heap of debt.
“It has been good for my work, but it also puts me in an unmanageable situation where I don’t really know what to do,” he told dr.dk.
A representative for the museum didn’t immediately respond to Fortune’s request for comment.
There is a long, tense history between the vision of artists designing a piece and the museum curating an exhibition.
One of the most recent examples is Banksy’s 2018 artwork Love Is in the Bin. The enigmatic artist’s original piece, titled Girl With Balloon, originally sold for £1 million (around $1.2 million) under auction at London’s Sotheby’s.
What the buyer didn’t know was that Banksy’s portrait was set to self-destruct by being shredded through its own frame as soon as a winning bid was confirmed. However, the painting returned to auction in its new form and sold for an eye-watering £16 million.