Danish artist told to repay museum €67,000 after turning in blank canvasses

Pay 67,000 euros by order of the court, get 10 million euros worth of publicity. Sounds like a shrewd move in the highly competitive wall-decor-for-rich-people market.
 
I am so tired of crap. seen as A R T! It's not! Never will be! Yes Gallery and Art pundits/ bandits make lotsa money! Pushing this nonsense. It's my opinion! Art schools add to this potpourri and garbage. Knowing they have no real talent or true values and appreciation, need to push this, in order to make great tuition fees..
 
I am so tired of crap. seen as A R T! It's not! Never will be! Yes Gallery and Art pundits/ bandits make lotsa money! Pushing this nonsense. It's my opinion! Art schools add to this potpourri and garbage. Knowing they have no real talent or true values and appreciation, need to push this, in order to make great tuition fees..

Calm down, dear. Just because you've used a bunch of exclamation points, it doesn't give your opinion any more weight.

Actually, the *first* time someone does something like this, it really *is* art, even if you don't like it. If the concept has value in commenting on our society--including the overinflated *monetary* values that result when the super-rich start seeing art as a commodity and investment vehicle instead of for its beauty--then it is valid. Although, of course, you're free to not take the message, and/or to decide you don't like the work itself, whatever its message. People have been complaining about art like this well before Duchamp showed his Fountain; to hear the academics talk, Impressionism was an abomination.

In fact, in this case, the demand for repayment, and the whole court case are part of the art. The clue is in the title of the work.

Yeah, it may not be art that floats your boat, and it may not fit your narrow definition of what art is. But I actually like it better than, say, Thomas Kinkade--which is far too many people's understanding of *art*--and it carries far more meaning.
 
From the "'Can't They Take A Joke?' Department":

Unfortunately, so much of contemporary art has been just that, a joke and a lame one, too, all with the intention to provoke and be "transgressive". OK, I get it, the Art World is a construct of Bourgeoise late-Capitalist consumer culture. Like anyone with a brain doesn't know that by now? Once that point has been made (again), then what? I want to believe that art can be of its time, address important social issues, and offer a critique of the dominant ideologies, and still offer beauty and feed the soul. Perhaps I'm naive...
 
Not really fair to Ken Rockwell...
Just to be fair, because I know KR gets a lot of jabs, I do respect his knowledge and the extensive good information on his site. His numerous side-by-side lens comparisons are excellent and his Nikon lens compatibility chart is the best on the internet. There's humor on his site as well; mere entertainment. But for many of his travel and gallery photos he's got the settings dialed way past 11.

This Danish artist, I think the whole thing is hilarious.

...

In fact, in this case, the demand for repayment, and the whole court case are part of the art.
...
Exactly.
 
There is a “blank” canvas hanging in the San Francisco MOMA and in the same room is another canvas slightly darker. they were acquired back in the 50’s so another artist beat him to it already. It has been done!
 
Well, the fact that it’s being talked about here shows it’s working. I have no problem with Art and with doing things like this, but this particular attempt comes off as been there done that. That said, I cannot think of a truly blank canvas (not painted) being out there at this level. The white painting (Rauschenberg) at the SF Moma is not a blank canvas.
 
Back
Top Bottom