> Haaning told Danish radio at the time: "The work is that I have taken their money. It's not theft. It is breach of contract, and breach of contract is part of the work."<p>Whoops. You weren't supposed to admit that it was breach of contract. You were supposed to say that by displaying your art, they publicly signaled their acceptance of the work. They're trying to get a refund on the sandwich they just ate. You could have told them to piss off if you hadn't characterized the work as a breach of contract. Or, that's the legal advice a scammer would follow. Instead, it's a proof of principled action that, in my mind, restores its status as a work of art.<p>> He added: "I encourage other people who have working conditions as miserable as mine to do the same. If they're sitting in some shitty job and not getting paid, and are actually being asked to pay money to go to work, then grab what you can and beat it."
It's pretty clear from the article that he was paid ~5K USD to replicate a piece of work he'd already created twice before—bank notes arranged to demonstrate average annual income. The museum <i>also</i> gave him the money that would feature in this artwork, but it was not intended as a payment.<p>He's been told he has to pay back <i>that</i> money, but not his artist's fee.
> The museum provided about 532,000 krone (£61,500) from its reserves to recreate artworks as well as an artist’s fee of about 40,000 krone. But when staff unpacked the newly delivered works, they found two empty frames with the title Take the Money and Run.<p>The title should be edited, the artist was not told to repay funding, he was told to return the bank notes that he was given as a medium for the piece (wall of bills).<p>This is really more like an artist saying they'll make a gold statue from gold given by the museum, and delivering a clay statue (or no statue at all) after pocketing the gold.
You can't display the art in your museum, and simultaneously claim it's not art. Youve just validated it as art!<p>I'm not in favor of nonsense art; just against hypocrisy.
> The museum put the new artworks on display, but when Haaning
declined to return the money, it took legal action.<p>Fantastic. They validated his work as John Cage style art!<p>It's not "nothing" in those frames. It's an ingenious representation
of the essential emptimess of life and art, seen through the lens of
the viewers interpretation.