Jens Haaning was entrusted with 530,000 Danish krone ($76,000) by a museum to produce artistic works. However, he opted to abscond with the money under the guise of art. Following a lengthy legal battle spanning nearly two years, a Copenhagen court has determined that the artist must return a majority of the funds.
In 2021, the Kunsten Museum of Modern Art in Aalborg, located in Denmark's Jutland region, provided Haaning with the loan to develop updated renditions of two previous artworks. These pieces consisted of frames filled with banknotes representing the average annual salaries of an Austrian and a Dane, intended for an exhibition exploring the future of labor. Instead, Haaning sent back two empty frames bearing the title "Take the Money and Run," asserting that he had created superior pieces that aligned with the exhibition's theme.
The conceptual artist said the piece was a commentary on low wages, and that his breach of contract was part of the work.
The new pieces were meant to be updated versions of artworks including "An Average Austrian Year Income, 2007," pictured here.
Jens Ziehe/Courtesy Sabsay Gallery
When speaking to CNN, he stated that he believed he could produce a superior artwork for them compared to what they had envisioned. He went on to explain that he did not view his actions as stealing money, but rather as creating a piece of art that far surpassed their original plans. He questioned the problem with this, stating that the new artwork encouraged contemplation of societal systems such as religion and marriage, and even suggested taking the money and leaving if necessary.
The Kunsten Museum of Modern Art displayed Haanings' empty canvases along with a printed email explanation, despite its initial objections.
8 thought-provoking artworks that challenged the worth of art.
Haanings empty canvases are part of a genre of controversial artworks that challenge the inherent value of art, examples being Maurizio Cattelan's installation of a taped banana on a wall and Banksy's act of shredding a painting during an auction. A similar concept was exhibited by conceptual artist Yves Klein in 1958 when he showcased an empty room to a large audience. However, despite the intention behind Haaning's artwork, the Copenhagen City Court ruled against him, stating that he was obligated to return the borrowed money, with artist and display fees deducted by 40,000 krone ($5,730). The court found the artwork entitled "Take the Money and Run" to be inadequate as it did not fulfill the requirements specified in Haaning's contract with the Kunsten Museum, which stipulated the delivery of two distinct pieces. Moreover, the court dismissed Haaning's counter-claim asserting copyright infringement by the museum. As a result, the artist has been instructed to cover the expenses related to the legal proceedings.
The museum showcased Haaning's latest artwork as a part of its "Work it Out" exhibition, which took place from September 2021 to January 2022. Following Monday's ruling, Kunstens director Lasse Andersson mentioned in an emailed statement to CNN that the museum would hold off on commenting until they found out whether or not Haaning would appeal the decision. Despite that, the artist did not provide a response to the comment request.
At the time, CNN was informed by Andersson that the work prompted crucial inquiries: "Is it necessary for us to toil in exchange for money, or can we simply appropriate it?" he pondered. "What motivates us to engage in labor? Such inquiries compel us to contemplate the societal customs we partake in. Furthermore, it extends to the query: Do artists receive adequate compensation for their contributions?"
Kunsten Museum of Modern Art in Aalborg, Denmark.
John Peter Photography/Alamy
Andersson also stated that the museum had fulfilled its end of the deal and had a reputation for honoring contracts and providing fair compensation to artists.
Haaning, on the other hand, contended that the payment of 10,000 krone ($1,571) by the museum for his artwork, along with the expenses for framing and delivery, would not have covered his studio costs and staff salaries, leaving him at a financial loss.