That is what he calculated he would have to spend (on top of the 10,000 krone fee from the gallery) to recreate the works. Which would have included studio rent and upkeep, pay for any staff, his time and work and materials. Still seems a bit high but I suppose he has to earn a living too.
Thanks. So when you say “fee” do you mean “stipend” or whatever the gallery was paying him to recreate the works? I think that’s what you mean, but want to make sure.
ETA: I’m pretty sure that’s what you meant. So, in that case, it still doesn’t make sense to me. As a contractor, when I would negotiate costs for construction jobs, I would include my anticipated material costs and then costs of labor. It doesn’t make sense to me that this well-established artist wouldn’t do the same thing. Like, why would he originally agree to a fee/stipend that was less than it would cost him to produce the work?
So, in short, I think this is all one big publicity stunt. And it worked. So good on them, bringing performance art into the gallery space 
Indeed. I can mount a bunch of cash on canvas in my own home for far less…it’s not like it was an original concept at this point. 
4 Likes
I think that’s the artist’s complaint (whether justified or not). He’s complaining that the deal the museum was prepared to offer him was less than he needs to produce the work and make a reasonable return for himself, i.e he’s being expected to make a loss on the art work.
I get your argument that agreeing to that in the first place is stupid but lots and lots of people feel they have no choice.
As we see here on the BBS all too often, creatives are constantly told that their return for their work is “exposure” or have the value of their work dismissed because “anyone could do that” or “it’s just ideas”.
And more “hands on” contractors such as plumbers, builders, etc are also constantly taking on jobs they
As I say I’ve no idea whether the artist here is justified in his complaints and I would also like to know more about the situation but I don’t think simply saying it’s dubious because no sensible contractor/artist would accept a job unless they’d negotiated a realistic rate is a sufficient answer.
He’s definitely wrong when he says this isn’t theft but only breach of contract - unless Danish law is very different from everywhere else. But then he’s an artist not a lawyer.
I think that is the nail struck firmly on the head.
Reading the artist’s quotes is that he feels that a Danish museum was taking advantage of him as a Dane and offering less than they would for an artist from another nation, and that he would have been offered more if the museum was in another nation. So this is a genuine and valid response to that. But the consequence attracts attention.
1 Like
“It’s not theft. It is a breach of contract, and breach of contract is part of the work.””
Says the artist. Well, the museum suing him and getting the money back can also be part of the work…
If there is a frame with glass covering the canvases then I’d say that’s about right.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
