Maybe i am reading it from a different perspective but intended = / =agreed on and embed is subjective cause the money is connected to the art. Even if its quantum entanglement.

I did misread the end of the article though. Apparently its the artist speaking and not the museum, i don’t think he ever expected to keep the money but justplay enough hardball to get famous, which worked.

[–] charonn0@startrek.website 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Alternative interpretations necessarily ignore the museum's intent.

[–] webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Maybe its just me getting mildly triggered by some terms now.

This is a cool discussion but i want to put some disclaimer because this is my so maniest comment with a pro-artist stance. I don’t have hard feeling either way of the argument.

Having said that i think if the museum intended the piece to be made by such narrow definitions then they weren’t looking for art and they didn’t need an artist.

There are thousands of art works commenting on the wealth gap that use real money as a medium it hardly be original. (Museum intended, seems opposite of artistic integrity)

The artwork that was provided is an original creative work. It comments on the wealth gap. (Museum spends big on artistic decor versus normal people who can use that money to live). The money is entangled with the art. Without the stolen money the art would not have a meaning.

I actually think the museum should present the money in a big money bag next to the painting labeled “stolen money” it would simultaneously remain part of the original work while also being its own reactionary peace on how crime doesn’t pay.

Here is an idea. The museum can hire me as an artist to put the money in that bag for them. I promise i wont fill it with junk and name it “unwise investment” /s