Ridiculous!! - parallels with some forms of poetry?

[Maureen K Clifford]

so he got a $20k grant, outlayed $10k for the banknotes and sold for $21k a profit of $11k, plus the $10 k left over from the grant and lets be generous and say that perhaps his setting up costs to market his art work came to $5k which would be debatable. That means he walked away with $16k cash in hand....now if the Government gives grants for poetry we can all put our hands up - combine our efforts sell at a profit and we're laughing - so what was your original problem with the concept Marty? Sounds like a good plan to me.



PS error pointed out in calculations - no surprises there I failed Maths Thank you Marty

[Dave Smith]

What's an unused $100 note? On the rare occasion I get them I use them.


"this poem is beyond explanation or understanding" In other words “Meaningless Crap”.

TTFN

[warooa]

It's not really 'tension between cultural and economic value' - it's more like 'check the date; is it April 1?' The fact that some Dummkopf spent 21k to "purchase" 20k sez it all - who's the bigger numpty - him/her or the Govt grant mob? Whereas the 'creator' of the artwork must be wetting his pants in disbelief.

Cheers, Marty

[Darren]

The sale price was $17500.00 but by the time the auction company took there slice it eneded up costing over $21,000.00 as per the article below. The news on the night only said the sale price and didn't include the fees and tax associated with the sale. I thought at the time that it was a fantastic way to make an instant 15% on your money. I know I would be straight down to the bank because there was nothing artistic about it as far as I was concerned.

SOME might call buying a $20,000 wad of cash for more than $21,000 a poor trade-off.

Artist Denis Beaubois didn't see it that way after his pile of cash, Currency, was auctioned last night.

The winning bid was just $17,500, and the final price of $21,350 included the buyer's premium and tax.

The controversial artwork -- two bundles of unused $100 notes -- was auctioned at Deutscher and Hackett in Prahran.

The work was funded with a $20,000 grant from the Australia Council and was divided into two lots of 100 uncirculated $100 banknotes.

Deutscher and Hackett had given it an estimate of $15,000-$25,000, with both extremes sending competing messages about the inflationary value of the work. The notes can still be used as legal tender, according to the artist.

[Kym]

Marty - That little pile is $20,000??? Really??? Geez ...

Other Marty - "numpty" - hahahaaa, I like it!

[Dave Smith]

Looks like it came straight from the bank, that would make the bank teller the artist wouldn't it?

TTFN

[Dave Smith]

Hey Kym you pushed in.

[Zondrae]

And has anyone thought..

Were they currency? That is 'legal Australian bank notes' - or were they old used notes that had been cancelled.. In any case I still think the artist has broken the law.
point one - it is illegal to possess notes that have been stamped as cancelled.
point two - if he has, any way, damaged or defaced the notes, while creating the 'Art' work, that is by gluing, stapeling or any other method or connection, that caused the note to be damaged in any way, he has broken a federal law.

[Maureen K Clifford]

I never have them long enough to make any kind of connection IMO the colour is delightful and the composition of the artwork totally seamless, the white pristine paper band around the notes adds to the perception of purity, clarity , reverence almost a religious experience as they are undefiled or soiled by everyday occurences

[Heather]

I wish I had that sort of loose change to play art with....