Grumpy Old Chook

Just when you think you have seen it all from the art world, someone comes along and takes the insanity to a whole new level …

Last night (31st August 2011) some schmuck in Melbourne paid $21,350 for an “art work” titled “Currency” that comprised of two $10,000 bundles of uncirculated $100 notes.

That’s right – they paid $21,350 for $20,000! It looks no different from the two bundles of notes that you might be handed by the bank teller should you ever be in the fortunate position of having a $20,000 cheque to cash. Nothing has been done to tart it up: it simply sits there, one bundle on top of the other.

Now, maybe I am naive, but my understanding of art is that you have to take the raw materials and actually do something with them to produce something new, creative and unique. If the “artist” (and I use that term very loosely) had made paper planes out of the notes, maybe it could have qualified as art. But just the raw material, sitting there unadorned, with nothing to distinguish it from other raw materials of the same kind?

Maybe, instead of using them to produce a painting, I should stick one of my tubes of paint on a piece of cardboard and call it “art” – perhaps some fool would pay big money for it.

Mind you, I can think of one group of people who would be very happy about this latest “work of art.” Potential thieves must be drooling at the mouth thinking about it.

I mean, why bother stealing a painting or a sculpture that you then have to fence? That can’t be an easy thing to do, given that any real art work is a one-of-a-kind piece, which means that the person who buys it has to be rich enough and narcissistic enough to pay good money for something that he/she will then bury in a private collection, to be enjoyed only by him/herself and maybe a very few very close associates.

This latest “art work” doesn’t present any of those problems. No need to sell it. Just peel off those crisp, new $100 notes one at a time and spend freely. Nothing to distinguish them from all the other $100 notes out there. (Well, yes, they probably have kept a record of the serial numbers – but that’s hardly enough to deter a clever thief.)

It presents a nightmare for any insurance company. After all, if someone steals a painting, there is some chance that it will be recovered and the insurance company will be able to recoup its loss. If “Currency” is ever stolen, what are the chances that it will ever be recovered? The term “Buckley’s” comes to mind.

The worst, most annoying, most frustrating part of the whole affair is that the greatest schmuck of all is the Australian government, who funded this outrage with a $20,000 Art Grant.

That’s right. Our government, which can’t afford to pay pensioners a decent amount, handed this bloke $20,000 of taxpayers money so that he could turn it into two bundles of $100 bills and call it art.

Who’s laughing at whom?

Comments are closed.