101
submitted 1 year ago by throws_lemy@lemmy.nz to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 22 points 1 year ago

So the museum made much more money thanks to the publicity but is still demanding their money back?

[-] An_Ugly_Bastard@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago

The artist named it “Take the Money and Run.” The museum should change it to “Get your Money Back and Laugh.”

[-] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

If this stunt generated far more publicity and/or patrons than an actual painting, couldn't the "artist" argue they fulfilled their end of the deal?

I wouldn't be surprised if some rich idiot pays a large amount of money for it, like that Banksy painting that sold for 20x after self-destructing.

[-] An_Ugly_Bastard@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

First, Banksey actually creates art. Second, This stunt generated 0 patrons. The person who does marketing for the museum generated publicity and patrons for bringing this to the medias attention. Without that, people would wonder why there was a blank canvas there.

load more comments (20 replies)
this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2023
101 points (93.9% liked)

World News

32326 readers
805 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS