Artwork Re-Sells Itself Weekly On eBay 372
Lanxon writes "How much would you pay for a piece of artwork that you could only own for a week? A Tool to Deceive and Slaughter, 2009, is a black acrylic box that places itself for sale on eBay every seven days thanks to an embedded Internet connection, which, according to the artist's conditions of sale, must be live at all times. Disconnections are only allowed during transport, says the creator, Caleb Larsen. Larsen tells Wired UK: 'Inside the black box is a micro controller and an Ethernet adapter that contacts a script running on [a] server [every] 10 minutes. The server script checks to see if the box currently has an active auction, and if it doesn't, it creates a new auction for the work.'" Another condition of sale is that the artist gets 15% each time the piece is sold. Maybe the First Sale Doctrine works differently in the UK.
Sounds like a pyramid scheme (Score:5, Insightful)
so... (Score:3, Insightful)
Art? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:so... (Score:1, Insightful)
If you can only own it for a week, then why the hell would you buy it in the first place?!
Hell, some women charge $50 for only a few minutes. And frankly they are far cheaper than "owning" one long term...
Re:Art? (Score:5, Insightful)
Frank Zappa had a good point. He claimed that the only thing art required was a frame -- metaphorical or literal. To make something art, all one had to do was simply put it in a frame -- i.e. declare it to be art. Anything that was created with the purpose of being art is, intrinsically, art.
Of course, as Frank was quick to point out, that doesn't make it good art, or worthwhile art, or a good idea. Just that the artists intent is all that matters as to whether something is art or not.
Re:Clever way to circumvent first sale. (Score:2, Insightful)
Remember, the current owner sets the starting price, so if you really wanted to hold on to it for a while and not sell, just set a very high starting price. As long as no one meets it, you keep the art.
It is art... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's the perfect scam! (Score:2, Insightful)
That's uh, all I really had to say
Re:Sounds like a pyramid scheme (Score:5, Insightful)
IMHO, scam it is. Listing reported to Ebay.
Uh, do you even understand what a scam is? The seller isn't scamming anyone here. I think even the slashdot summary is (for once!) pretty clear about the item.
This isn't some kind of mad marketing scheme trying to make millions. It's a funny concept playing with technology and might interest some people for its novelty. Cry me a river.
Re:I'm an idiot (Score:3, Insightful)
That's exactly what it is. Foolish fun. You should try it some time, it lightens up the day.
Not everything in life is about calculating that "you need to sell it at 118% profit to break even".
Re:It's the perfect scam! (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, a black lacquered cube is not something that's hard to for many people make themselves. The restrictions on it negate any of the novelty that its electronic functionality might have. And seven days just isn't much time to "enjoy" an object that's priced at $2700, and assuming you sell it at the same price, you paid $650 in fees (15% to "artist", 10% to eBay + PayPal fees) for the favor of having it for a week.
The suggestion that it's somehow going to appreciate in value to offset the fees and make the reseller a profit on top of that is an interesting fantasy. Maybe if the resale stipulation was once a year, but that's optimistic too.
Re:Clever way to circumvent first sale. (Score:4, Insightful)
Pass-the-parcel (Score:4, Insightful)
To everyone saying "scam" and "this will never work" and "this is not art": this auction and event is clearly not for you. I think it is for all those people who played and enjoyed "pass-the-parcel" as a childhood game. In this case, it is like playing pass-the-parcel in reverse. Remember, everyone who "buys" the work still has the right to "sell" it afterwards and this can go on until the value of the art drops. The person still holding the parcel in that situation is unlucky as s/he will lose money. So long as the artist stays in vogue or becomes more established, people will make (small amounts of) money on each transaction - up to a point. It's just a piece of harmless fun for those people who can afford to risk up to £2500 on a scheme like this. I agree with those who say that the artist should have gone for a monthly or quarterly rather than a weekly scheme. But I wouldn't think that their aim is any more than illustrating a principle.
Re:Art? (Score:3, Insightful)
Funny thing is, there are two "Art Worlds" that live side by side, rarely interact. One is the high-profile Damien Hirst, Tracey Emin set that create art that is esoteric to the point of mundanity, and the other is the world of paintings, photos, etc. that people actually buy. DeviantArt does a roaring trade. High street art dealers selling local paintings of standard prints do jolly business (outside our current recession, anyway). This latter world of art dwarfs the "Art World" as the media portrays it, is far more familiar to us all, is more popular, and yet is seldom considered by the media. Strange, isn't it, when you think about it.
No such thing as 1st Sale Doctrine outside USA (Score:2, Insightful)
"Maybe the First Sale Doctrine works differently in the UK."
Or maybe it doesn't exist, what with that being an American law [wikipedia.org], and all, and the UK being a different country and all.
Why do Americans, and Slashdotters in particular, assume that the world's legal systems are based on the USA's?
With you being such a new country, you'd think you'd realise that your laws are an amalgam of what's gone before - and that Common Law or other branches were around a long time before your country existed.
The whole world doesn't want to be American you know.
Re:Sounds like a pyramid scheme (Score:5, Insightful)
...the "art" in question really is just a black cube.
Part of me has to admire the "artist" in spite of myself.
The art isn't the black cube. the 'art' is the conditions of sale. it's a piece about the market forces in the art world. The black box is only the frame.
There is a very good chance that the artist is just toying with the collectors about this whole project. in a sense, the artist is gaming the system, and presenting that as art.
Re:so... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:!art (Score:5, Insightful)
Lol, not a topic for slashdot (Score:4, Insightful)
I knew this story wouldn't go well on this site. Nerds typically don't get art. I don't get it either but am at least aware that the "art" in this case is NOT the physical black box but the entire concept. The concept of the black box (as a device that functions without you knowing what goes on inside) and the concept of it selling itself and needing to be resold.
A lot of art AIN'T about the physical product, but about the idea behind it.
Since I am a geek, I don't pretend to fully understand the artists thinking behind it and am even willing to admit that I personally think he might be blowing a bit of smoke. But the failing is mine, not his.
It is an interesting idea, but you got to be able to look beyond the mechanics. I predict that only a handful of real /.ers (as in people who don't think XP is the first and best OS ever) can truly get art. Forever outsiders looking in.
Then again, we get tech, which I notice some more socially aware just don't get... if only we could use both halfs of our minds at the same time :P
I disagree, they feed on each other. (Score:5, Insightful)
Where do you draw the line? Simple example: Picasso. Mainstream or not? Once he was not, now he is. Rap was once extreme, now it is so mundane white people do it. Elvis Presley once shocked the world, now he is elevator music.
Movies were once extreme, daring, shocking and made in Hollywood, now Hollywood stands for everyday commercial crap.
When someone made the first shadow portrait, he or she was the first, pushing technology to new limits. Now it is old hat.
The paintings and photographs you mentioned all developed over time (get it, photographs, developed?) into different forms. The super realistic paintings that are considered "not proper art" anymore by the snobs but the rest of us buy (Rembrandt) were NEW once.
The media wants to show us new things. The first guy to break the 1 minute on the 10 mile run is news, the second isn't. The first moon-landing was news, by the time of Apollo 13, people famously didn't care anymore.
For art to be news worthy, it got to do something new. You wouldn't accept a slashdot story on a guy painting the ceiling of a church in high detail with just paint and brushes would you? Been done.
This guy is a scam artist (Score:5, Insightful)
One of his pieces of 'art' is a dollar bill acceptor on a plain white wall. Once $10,000 dollars is reached, the money is split between Larsen and whoever owns the acceptor. Then it starts again.
Another piece of 'art' was the purchaser of the 'art' assuming Larsen's credit card bills.
Another was a 'donor plaque', in which the more you gave, the bigger your name was on the plaque.
All of his newest pieces of 'art' just seem to be money makers for himself that prey on people who want to seem like they are hip to the 'art scene.'
Re:Sounds like a pyramid scheme (Score:4, Insightful)
do you even understand what a scam is
Sounds like he does, better than you do. There are so many ways this can go wrong for the sucker who "wins" this auction. From the maunfacturer (I was going to say artist, but it doesn't count as art: callit as such doesn't make i9t so) not restarting the auction if/when he gets bored with the idea to the previous sucker not shipping it. What will the buyer do the? travel across the country / world to pick it up in person?
In short: scam. Whether intentioned or not, it's still a stoopid way to lose a lot of money.
Re:Sounds like a pyramid scheme (Score:2, Insightful)
So what you are saying is that merely because something can go wrong, it makes it a scam to begin with?
Scamming is intentional. It tricks people to lose their money. There is no trickery here and the buyer knows what he is buying.
Re:Lol, not a topic for slashdot (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Sounds like a pyramid scheme (Score:4, Insightful)
Looks to me like the terms and conditions are clearly spelled out in advance. If someone's too dumb to work out what they mean that doesn't make it a scam.
Re:Art? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, signing a urinal 'R. Mutt' and getting a gallery to put it on display was a pretty interesting accomplishment. The guy helped the dadaist movement in America which, at the time considered to be absolute junk, later inspired art styles like punk rock.
Now, to /. at large, get over yourselves. So you don't understand why this is art, or why someone would pay $5 grand for it. And because you don't understand it, it must be wrong. Take the chance to go learn something, instead. You are geeks, be curious! Read "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction", take a high level art class some place. Learn about Fluxus, "Happenings", or Nam June Pak and Tom Igoe. If you can dismiss this just because you do not "get it", then it is pretty reasonable for others who do not "get" your work to just dismiss it as well.
Disclaimer: As a poor artist, I appreciate the mockery this guy is making of the art collecting world, and would love to laugh at the 'stupid collectors' buying it over and over, but I think they get the joke as well.
modern definition of art: (Score:5, Insightful)
Whatever scam you can get away with.
--Andy Warhol
Re:Sounds like a pyramid scheme (Score:2, Insightful)
Ttechnically, the artist has the upper hand to collect any fees he wishes on the contract. But, if he fully persue the contract to the letter, he will suffer the consequences of all the painters/ photographers/ artists whose works appeared on tv and has sued for copyright infringement (and subsequently won) - became blacklisted.
On the other hand, collectors have been "profiting" from artists for ages by re-selling and speculating on its true value in a short period of time, not too different from buying/selling stock and this has been a serious problem which led to the "art bubble" to burst in Asia in the 80s-90s. Even serious collectors and small galleries who gains commission from sales feel dumped by this practice. Imagine if you were contracted as work-for-hire to write a piece of code for $5,000, then it was re-packed and re-branded x-amount of times by marketers, until it was sold for $500,000 for several financial institutions - and you get nothing out of it. That kind of sucks for you as the creator, but that's how it is in the art world.
Why not just go directly to the big-paying collector? Simply because each transaction establishes its worth. Even if Picasso went to the president of GE to sell his work for $5 mil, nobody would see it worth that much (not even the IRS).
And for those who think I-could've-done-that, no you can't because galleries are super-protective of their reputation these days, and they won't even give you the light of day unless you have an MFA from a respectful institution (or has an undergrad from such institution). Yes, it's shallow but it's a weed-out process unless you're really really talented or has previous gallery exhibitions to backup your claims. And if you don't have a *fine art* degree, they'll clump you as "folk art" and direct you to those weekend street art fairs next to the face painting tent. If you want to go the art route with nothing, you'll have to start at small community galleries and build up your reputation/ CV from there.
Re:I disagree, they feed on each other. (Score:3, Insightful)
An honest artist. (Score:1, Insightful)
I'd say he's an honest artist. If you go back to DaVinci, or even Cimabue, no one does art without money/ resources. Every single artist in time did it as a *job*, albeit the famous one did it with passion and more talent than its contemporaries.
In short, artists make art for money; they use that money to sustain themselves in order to make more art. Larsen is being honest about his art and producing more work, unlike the execs at Enron, Goldman Sachs, et al showering themselves with extravagant vacation, parties, golf courses, and gambling on a market by "borrowing" your money - those are the real scam artists.
Re:Lol, not a topic for slashdot (Score:4, Insightful)
If I piss in a bucket and throw it on an artist, that is art. I am sure they wouldn't like it even so.
The concept that some people "just don't get art" is simply the way an internally elitist system creates its own boundaries and structures. It is reflected in every other type of interest as well. Programmers will say that some people "just don't get" the significance of database choice. Bankers will say some people "just don't get" the significance of synthetic bonds. Artists say some people "just don't get" the significance of art. But I would argue that the most reflected of these groups acknowledge that what is important for them really and truly IS insignificant for other people, without that making any of them any less.
Re:Lol, not a topic for slashdot (Score:1, Insightful)
There's nothing to "get" in this style of art. I could break into your house, take a steaming dump on the kitchen table and call it "art" - as long as I had a pretentious enough explanation about why it was "artistic". Of course, no "serious artist" would ever do that, as there's NO MONEY IN IT.
In that sense, the black box from TFA is the ultimate distillation of modern art - no form, no function, just a never-ending trail of suckers bidding up the price of something that they *pretend* to understand. It's basically hedge fund investing for pretentious douchebags.
Re:Sounds like a pyramid scheme (Score:1, Insightful)
". . .the previous sucker not shipping it."
If eBay disqualified items for sale as "Scams" because the seller might not ship the item, the entire premise of eBay is effectively ended and they need to scam tag every sale and close up shop.
You're an idiot, and I'm amazed and terrified that people have modded you +4 insightful.
Doubly so since "stupid" doesn't have any fucking Os in it.
Re:Lol, not a topic for slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
I knew this story wouldn't go well on this site. Nerds typically don't get art.
Lots of people here "get art". That doesn't mean you have to think it's particularly clever or "good". This particular piece is certainly a good scam and way to make some dough for the original guy. It's about as good "art" as the thing Bernie Madhoff did though (Maybe 'ol Bernie should have just called his scam art, and he wouldn't be rotting in jail now)
Since I am a geek, I don't pretend to fully understand the artists thinking behind it and am even willing to admit that I personally think he might be blowing a bit of smoke. But the failing is mine, not his.
And you have fully bought into "the emperor has no clothes" concept that's all too common in the art world. If you're not familiar with the concept, here's the synopsis:
1. Some acclaimed, but inexplicable (i.e. crap) piece of art is laid out before you.
2. You can't quite make head or tail of it.. but not wanting to sound like an idiot you talk about how great it is (Some idiot paid 100,000 for it, so it MUST be good right? Plus.. it's in this museum! These are trained professionals, they know what they're doing! It must be I just don't "get art").
I've gone to plenty of art museums over the years. There's quite a bit of really shitty art in them. A year ago a saw what amounts to some of the worst I've ever seen. It was a Japanese artists who essentially took a lot of plastic crap and burned it. He had quite the display of burned plastic crap and resin, so somehow he hypnotized enough people into thinking this was somehow great enough to wind up in a museum.
Some might argue that you "need to keep an open mind". I agree, Just don't keep it so open that your brain falls out.
Re:This guy is a scam artist (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's compare this with something like WoW where the "patrons" pay a monthly fee and a significant portion of their life for the privilege of clicking their mouse a few thousand times just so they can make their name go bigger on a "virtual plaque".
Oh yeah, this guy's definitely got a monopoly on swindling brainless people...
Re:Sounds like a pyramid scheme (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Lol, not a topic for slashdot (Score:3, Insightful)
don't appreciate smarmy asshats with half our IQ acting all offended
(accent mine)
Given the collective groupthink on Slashdot, that would mean he has an IQ of around 22 - 23, right?
Re:No such thing as 1st Sale Doctrine outside USA (Score:2, Insightful)
Russia: 860
Norway: 872
United Kingdom: 927
Iceland: 930
Poland: 960
Denmark: 980
Spain: 1492
United States: 1776
I'd list more but I got bored.
Hey eBay... Fraudulent Sale (Score:3, Insightful)
Art or not, the physical device is owned by whoever last purchased it. The device then lists itself using the artist's credentials. Caleb Larson is then offering for sale an item that he does not own, have physical possession of, or title to (title passed to the last Collector). Strikes me that, beyond the sale to the first "Collector", this is a flagrantly fraudulent auction and that no contract can abrogate the law. I wonder how long before someone that parted with a substantial sum to possess the physical item (it is a nice looking cube after all) decides to challenge this through eBay.
On the other hand, it does point out some of the ludicrous goings-on with respect to trailing commissions in all sorts of fields.