Slashdot Mirror


Artwork Re-Sells Itself Weekly On eBay

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.

22 of 372 comments (clear)

  1. Sounds like a pyramid scheme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So.. each person who buys this will, in theory, try to do everything they can to make sure that the sale price tops their purchase price (including shipping) by 15%, so as to recoup all their costs. Sounds like a great scam for the artist.

    1. Re:Sounds like a pyramid scheme by clang_jangle · · Score: 4, Informative

      The current bid as I write this is $4,250.00, and the "art" in question really is just a black cube. Part of me has to admire the "artist" in spite of myself.

      --
      Caveat Utilitor
    2. Re:Sounds like a pyramid scheme by sopssa · · 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.

    3. Re:Sounds like a pyramid scheme by deniable · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's a cube scheme, not pyramid.

    4. Re:Sounds like a pyramid scheme by theheadlessrabbit · · 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.

      --
      -I only code in BASIC.-
    5. Re:Sounds like a pyramid scheme by Hognoxious · · 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.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    6. Re:Sounds like a pyramid scheme by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Your analysis is almost certainly correct, and it's why the only thing I hate more than modern art is modern artists and their fans. There was a time long, long ago when art was about years of honing talent to create previously unknown and unexpressed works of beauty in the world. Now it's about cheap, crass attempts at being 'clever', weird, shocking, or so blandly inscrutable as to be worthless to most people. A couple months ago I went to the Hirshhorn and beheld all the boxes, piles of painted garbage, and random lines and thought to myself, to what is the common man supposed to relate in this drivel? Only a handful of prigs think such things have meaning, and the meaning they largely invent to see if they can outwit the other prigs in their artsy clique. I had to do that myself in college for classes that related to visual arts, and it made me despise myself to know I was drawing lines in the air and spewing completely fabricated bullshit that in truth should have no association with the crass visual grotesquery I was supposedly describing, but in such contexts that passes for 'insight'. If a piece of art cannot convey some emotional meaning to a wide audience it is worthless. It is a failure of communication and of art itself.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
  2. Art? by Toonol · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Only if the definition of art encompasses EVERYTHING. I like art too much to consider this an example. This is attention-mongering and marketing.

    1. Re:Art? by gowen · · 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.

      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    2. Re:Art? by Knuckles · · Score: 5, Informative

      Frank Zappa had a good point. He claimed that the only thing art required was a frame .

      With all due respect to Zappa, it's Marcel Duchamp who understood this first, around 1913.

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    3. Re:Art? by muridae · · Score: 4, 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.

  3. Erm....15 % each time its sold? by tonywestonuk · · Score: 5, Informative

    according to the article '....give Larsen 15 percent of any increase in value ...', which is slightly different to what the story summary implies. I wonder, should the value decrease, does the seller get 15% back of any decrease?...I guess not!

  4. Re:Bragging rights.... by SteveFoerster · · Score: 4, Funny

    The purchaser also gains the right to claim the title of "The worlds most obvious sucker".... ...but only for one week.

    --
    Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
  5. Stupid cube art. by Animats · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Some famous artist once exhibited a metal cube about 1m on a side. He was based in New York, and one day, driving through New Jersey, he saw a sign that said "You design it, we fabricate it". So he called them and ordered a 1m cube of solid steel. It was explained to him how much this would weigh. So he settled for a cube of sheet metal on a frame. The cube was duly fabricated and drop-shipped to the Museum of Modern Art in New York.

    That was in the 1970s, when it was at least an original idea. As late as the 1990s, the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art was showing a Plexiglas cube held together with tape. That was embarrassing. (When SFMOMA started, all the money went into their building, and the permanent collection was awful. It's since improved, but it's still far behind NY and LA.)

    As Frank Lloyd Wright pointed out, you can have very simple geometric forms, but the materials and finishes must be very well chosen.

  6. Re:I'm an idiot by mister_playboy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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".

    Looking at the terms of the sale, I'd say that only counts as "fun" if you're a lawyer.

    --
    Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
  7. Re:!art by Ma8thew · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Please define art.

  8. Re:No such thing as 1st Sale Doctrine outside USA by malp · · Score: 4, Informative

    Oh for craps sake. It does exist. From the wikipedia article you linked to:
    Exhaustion of rights - A concept in EU law similar to the US "First-sale doctrine

    Gee... sounds an awful lot like a first sale doctrine that works differently. Did you even notice the other wild-ass assumptions in your post?

    Why do Americans, and Slashdotters in particular, assume that the world's legal systems are based on the USA's?
    Errr... We do?

    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.
      That's kinda obvious. I mean, the only other alternative is that the founding fathers knew no history or systems of government other than monarchies when they drafted the constitution. That's just seems silly.

    The whole world doesn't want to be American you know.
    OMGWTFBBQ?

    Strong statements require strong proof, and the only proof you offered us for your wack-ass statements is a single unrelated quote from the /. summary.

  9. I disagree, they feed on each other. by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 4, 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.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  10. This guy is a scam artist by AnotherUsername · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I took a look at some of his other 'art' on his website.

    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.'

    --
    I don't like Linux. This doesn't make me a troll.
  11. modern definition of art: by Alomex · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Whatever scam you can get away with.

    --Andy Warhol

  12. Re:Lol, not a topic for slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  13. Re:Lol, not a topic for slashdot by Vellmont · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    AccountKiller