Danish artist must repay funding after submitting empty frames titled "Take the money and run"

Originally published at: Danish artist must repay funding after submitting empty frames titled "Take the money and run" | Boing Boing


Good. This was just a rip-off of my “Snow” series which I have posted here during the lockdown.


Issa Rae Sue Him GIF by BuzzFeed


Try and get in before The Steve Miller Band.


As a personal opinion, the artist is a genius.

The behaviour of both museum - they displayed the artwork - and judge - he can keep his fee - has also been extremely reasonable.


I’m not going to say he’s a genius, but he did game a usually ridiculous system and get paid for it, and now he and the gallery have a news story.


A win-win scenario situation?

winning charlie sheen GIF


It’s not the worst modern art related story :woman_shrugging:t3:


Not sure how the process for this works but i would hope that the museum tries to get proposals for new artwork before spending their money on some random jackass.

1 Like

Usually, a call to artists who then provide ideas or concepts, then one is chosen and funded. The artist then delivers the work and gets paid.

It sounds like this guy failed to keep his promise. People have certainly heard of him now, but I doubt many reputable galleries will be so keen to work with him after this, and I suspect the gallery won’t be so eager to pay up before they see the finished works.

Today’s lesson: Don’t bullshit people.


The contract was about reproducing an older artwork of about 10 years ago, consisting, IIUC, in notes glued to canvas showing the growth of the average monthly income for a Dane and for an Austrian.

So the idea of the end result was quite clear - he delivered something different, still valuable artistically (?), but definitely not in monetary terms.


Yeah, if he’d managed to get the museum to agree to an open-ended contract where he simply had to create a work that was some kind of commentary about capitalism and art then this would have been genius. As it is, he clearly didn’t fulfill the conditions of the agreement (which specified exactly how the cash was supposed to be used).


Dumb-ass didn’t follow the second part of his own advice: run.


So aside from not fulfilling the conditions of the agreement, this art’s statement only works if the people viewing it know the full context, including what used to be hanging there. I’d argue that makes it lousy art, in the same way that a joke is lousy if you have to explain the punchline.

1 Like

I wouldn’t call him a a genius, it’s not even an original idea. It didn’t work for the kid who drew a “snowshoe hair in a snowstorm” in my middle school art class and it didn’t work this artist. Nice attempt though :woman_shrugging:

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.