A Danish artist was given thousands
of dollars by a museum to reproduce
one of his works of art, okay?
It's an older work of art that they
wanted him to basically do again
for the museum.
Now instead he actually ended
up pocketing the money and
called it a new conceptual artwork.
He titled it,
Take The Money and Run.
So here are the details and
we do have the image for
you in just a minute.
So, the Kunsten Museum of
Modern Art in northern Denmark
originally commissioned
Jens Haaning to recreate two of
his earlier works as part of their
Work It Out exhibition.
The works, which were
initially showcased in 2007,
consisted of two canvases encased
in glass that contained the average
income of Denmark and
Austria as real bank notes.
Sounds intriguing,
like super into it.
Now, Lasse Anderson, director of
the museum said that the museum did
lend this artist 534,000
Danish kroner,
which isn't that much in US money,
$84,000 to recreate the works.
But that it had contractually
agreed that the money must
be returned when the exhibition
ends in January of 2022.
When the museum employees opened
the two packages from the artist,
the $84,000 was nowhere to be
found.
Now, let's actually fast forward to
what the art ended up being, it
ended up being two blank canvases.
>> Genius.
>> And he titled it Take
the Money and Run.
[LAUGH] >> Which I think A,
he's a conceptual artist,
he's doing his thing.
>> That's the concept.
>> And B,
how is this not modern art?
This is modern art.
>> This is exactly modern art.
In fact, it's one of the best
modern art I've ever seen.
Because usually it's like orange
and it has no meaning.
And he's like, I don't know,
what do you think it is?
>> No, no, it has the meaning that
you decide to apply to it.
>> Yeah, well,
I could do that at home.
[LAUGH] That's not art.
Whereas this actually is art.
And he's saying,
you made the mistake of trusting me
with your $84,000, and now I gave
you two blank pieces, and go, well,
what am I going to do, right?
No but seriously look, the whole
world is talking about it.
And it started up
an interesting conversation.
By the way, the museum has
an excellent point which is,
as I was reading the story,
it was a roller coaster ride.
I'm like, good on you, bad on you.
Good, wait a minute.
[LAUGH] the museum says, look,
this is a combination of private
and public money and the money was
supposed to be put into the canvas.
We're not paying him that money for
what we commissioned for
the art itself.
>> They say that it was supposed to
be the materials in order for
him to recreate that art that he
did for 2007 right?
>> Right.
>> I don't know, I'm not an artist.
But really, $84,000 for materials,
like what is this?
>> No I think he's putting
the money in the painting itself.
>> That's why, right?
>> All right. >> Yeah,
he's not supposed to go and
get- >> I was like,
damn man that [CROSSTALK] acrylic
paint can get real expensive.
[LAUGH] That makes way more sense.
Whatever, it's stupid.
Were they going to pay him though?
Was he going to get paid to do
the art?
>> So yeah, he was going to get
paid about $3,900 and
he said- >> Damn,
you got into the nitty gritty.
>> Of course, I'm reading half
a dozen articles but you know why?
Because it's an interesting story.
He did interesting art, right?
And so they say, look now,
some of that money is public money.
You can't just steal it.
And not put it into the painting as
you said you were going to do.
And he says, you guys are paying me
too little so I just took it or,
[LAUGH] hey,
plus it's part of his art.
>> I love that.
[LAUGH] >> Now at first I thought
the same thing Ana did.
That's why I read so much into it.
I'm like,
$84,000 is too little brother?
Man you got it.
I don't know what's going on in
European countries, but
you guys live at large right.
>> I know, for real.
>> Yeah, but it turns out no,
that's supposed to go into
the painting.
The 3,900 is his payment and
he's like, agree to disagree.
Now, the payment is $88,000 or
87,900.
Now, on the one hand,
you gotta give it back, don't you?
I mean, it's a loan.
>> Do you?
>> Okay but do you,
it's got a Bonnie and
Clyde feel to it.
>> He delivered.
>> And he stuck it to them, man,
but I don't know that he
intended this, but I like his meta
critique of modern art,
whether he intended it or not.
He's like, look,
it's all BS anyway.
What difference does it make
[LAUGH] if I put the money on
the canvas or I don't put it in?
You're all talking about it.
That's all we care about.
And this created a kerfuffle.
>> Can I give you
a direct quote from him?
So this is a direct quote from
the artist Jens Haaning.
He says, in regard to returning
the money, he's like, no it the
money does not have to be returned.
The work is in fact that I have
taken their money.
[LAUGH] >> That is my work of art,
the fact that I have robbed them.
[LAUGH] >> It's amazing.
>> By the way, that also is
a statement and it's a statement
that does resonate with the times.
Because the reason why this story
has gone viral all across
the world, is because every one of
us is in some ways going, attaboy.
Why? Because we're all
getting screwed by the man.
And so when this guy, in a sense,
fights back- >> Mm-hm.
>> Through art and says,
no just take the money and run man,
we're all sick of it,
that's why people like go get them!
And so it resonates more than
anything else I've seen in modern
art maybe in my lifetime, let alone
certainly in the last couple years.
>> Yeah, look, the only hang up
that I have is the fact that
there's public money involved.
However, you're right in that this
has led to publicity.
And has informed the public of
the very existence of this
museum internationally.
We're here in the United States and
all of a sudden I'm talking about
the Kunsten Museum in Denmark.
Like, okay, maybe next time I'm in
Denmark, I'll visit.
>> I just want to see that- >> I
just want to see that, exactly,
it's fascinating.
>> $7,900.
>> But we actually want to ask you
guys what you think about it.
So we have a poll on this,
tyt.com/polls to participate.
Were the artist's
actions a legitimate form of art?
Or just straight up theft?
Yes or no very easy,
very easy poll.
>> Yeah, and
it's a tough one because I really
want to answer both.
[LAUGH] It kind of was theft and
it kind of was legitimate art.
And which then makes it even more.
By the way, the museum director,
he's also conflicted.
Obviously he's really
hurt about it.
By the way,
this could affect your vote.
And this was the last part of
the rollercoaster for me.
He's like, look, guys,
people might get fired if we don't
get the money back.
And I was like, damn it,
don't say that.
>> That gets rid of the pro-worker
angle, you know what I'm saying?
>> That's right,
that's what makes the story so
interesting.
And so, but the director was like,
it kind of is art.
It's kind of good.
[LAUGH] And they asked him,
would you work with him again,
he's like, if he returns to
the money we gave it to him as
a loan- [LAUGH] >> I might or
he might have said, I guess.
>> I guess.
[LAUGH]