Artist Ordered to Return Money After Creating “Empty” Artwork
Copenhagen, Denmark — Danish artist Jens Haaning has been ordered by a Copenhagen court to return nearly all of the 530,000 Danish krone ($76,000) loaned to him by the Kunsten Museum of Modern Art. Haaning was given the money to create updated versions of two earlier works for an exhibition on the future of labor. However, instead of creating the artworks, Haaning sent the museum two empty frames titled “Take the Money and Run,” claiming that he had created new, improved pieces to fit the theme of the exhibition.
Haaning defended his actions by stating that his breach of contract was part of the artwork and a commentary on low wages. He argued that he had created a better piece than originally planned, asking, “What is the problem?” Despite his explanation, the court ruled against Haaning, stating that he was obliged to return the loaned money.
The museum, despite its protestations, exhibited Haaning’s empty canvases alongside an email in which he explained his actions. Haaning’s empty artworks are part of a genre of controversial works that question the value of art itself, similar to the likes of Maurizio Cattelan taping a banana to a wall and Banksy shredding a painting at auction.
The court ruled that Haaning’s “Take the Money and Run” pieces were deficient compared to what was outlined in his contract with the museum. The ruling also dismissed Haaning’s counter-claim, accusing the museum of infringing on the work’s copyright. Additionally, Haaning has been ordered to pay the costs associated with the legal proceedings.
In response to the ruling, the director of Kunsten Museum of Modern Art, Lasse Andersson, stated that the museum would wait to see whether Haaning appealed the decision before commenting. Haaning has not responded to requests for comment.
The museum previously exhibited Haaning’s new artwork as part of its “Work it Out” exhibition, which ran from September 2021 to January 2022. At the time, Andersson stated that the artwork raised important questions about the value of work and the payment of artists.
Andersson also emphasized that the museum had upheld its side of the agreement and was known for honoring contracts and paying artists reasonable fees. Haaning argued that the payment made by the museum for his work would have left him out of pocket due to studio costs and staff salaries.
While Haaning’s actions may have sparked debate about the nature of art and its value, the court ruling highlights the importance of meeting contractual obligations in the art world.