It sounds like something out of a movie – an artist is paid $84k ( roughly R1.2 million) for a piece on money, so he keeps the money and calls it art.
However, truth is often stranger than fiction, and this is exactly what happened in the case of artist Jens Haaning versus the Kunsten Museum in Denmark.
The assignment
Haaning was asked to reproduce two of his works, which represented the annual salary in Denmark and Austria. For context, he had previously used framed cash as the medium for his works, and the Kunsten Museum was set to host an exhibition on the ‘future of labour.’
The Kunsten Museum had decided to ‘lend’ Haaning 534 000 Danish crowns for the work, as well as an additional 10 000 crowns.
On the day of delivery, the frames were empty. A blank canvas was all that there was to see. Had someone ‘stolen’ the art cash? Indeed – except that person was the artist himself.
“The work is that I have taken their money,” Haaning expressed as per the BBC.
He even titled the ‘creation’ “Take the Money and Run.”
The museum didn’t know how to feel.
“He stirred up my curatorial staff and he also stirred me up a bit, but I also had a laugh because it was really humoristic,” Lasse Andersson, director of the museum in the city of Aalborg, told the BBC‘s Newsday programme.
Why did he do it?
Shock value? Recreating conceptual musings like that of Banksy’s shredded canvas that question the value of art themselves? It’s a statement against capitalism in my opinion, writes Cape {town} Etc’s Ashleigh Nefdt, but I also think Haaning just wanted to keep the money in the name of art.
“I encourage other people who have just as miserable working conditions as me to do the same,” Haaning actually said. He also noted that the works would have put him about 25 000 out of pocket, due to studio costs and staff salaries as per CNN.
Although the museum has left the work on display, they seem to be stern in the fact that they want their money back. According to the museum, Haaning’s claim that they had not agreed to pay him fairly was nonsensical.
Haaning on the other hand has no plan to return the money and isn’t worried about the repercussions.
Read More: