Sadly the story is not so cut and dry. The artist was Specifically commissioned to re-create some of his earlier work where he represented annual wages by framing cash. The museum offered him the cash to do this. He took the money and sent the blank canvases.
The museum sued for the money that he didn’t use in the creation of the work. And won. Minus some artist fees, because they had gone ahead with the exhibition.
The rest of the context was he took the commission on purpose. The commission was so cheap he would have lost money doing it despite the exhibit itself literally being made of money. So he took the commission and mocked it to leave a statement about museums and exhibits behavior towards artists and the media managed to mostly spin it in the exhibits favor despite all that.
…If I were the artist’s lawyer? I’d do a check to see if anyone had done it before…and rule that, no, this is actually a unique piece if not.
If someone did before? Settle for half.
Sadly the story is not so cut and dry. The artist was Specifically commissioned to re-create some of his earlier work where he represented annual wages by framing cash. The museum offered him the cash to do this. He took the money and sent the blank canvases.
The museum sued for the money that he didn’t use in the creation of the work. And won. Minus some artist fees, because they had gone ahead with the exhibition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Take_the_Money_and_Run_(artwork)
The rest of the context was he took the commission on purpose. The commission was so cheap he would have lost money doing it despite the exhibit itself literally being made of money. So he took the commission and mocked it to leave a statement about museums and exhibits behavior towards artists and the media managed to mostly spin it in the exhibits favor despite all that.