This artist was given a bunch of cash, and a commission by an art museum, to make a specific piece of art on spec. He was expected to stick cash to a canvasses, and give them to the museum as a piece of conceptual art that's supposed to say something about the value of labor. Instead, he turned in empty canvasses, titled them "take the money and run" and told them that's the art. The museum is taking him to court for it, but as we can see in the pictures on this article, the museum is exhibiting the canvasses.
By institutional definitions of art, anything exhibited at an art museum is art. I mean, definitions of art can get super weird, but I assume institutional definitions of art will work for legal purposes. I think the museum knows this, and they are taking him to court to add to the story of the art, which will increase it's monetary value. That makes it super deep and stuff, because the value of the art about your labor's value was not given value by the artist's labor, as much as it was given value by the labor of lawyers, and business people, and reporters.
In the Name of Art, an Artist Pockets $83,000 and Creates Nothing The artist delivered two blank canvases titled ‘Take the Money and Run’ to a Danish museum. He was commissioned to produce a commentar...
www.evernote.com
www.theguardian.com
arstechnica.com
www.bbc.co.uk
www.cnn.com
