Funding art with "unethical" investments
A Swedish artist uses dividends from an "unethical" investment fund (money used to buy shares in an arms dealer, a tobacco company, an alcohol company, a pornography company, and a gambling company) to fund scholarships for artists. He calls the fund, "The Pål Hollender Foundation for Ethically or Aesthetically Offended Consumers of Culture."
Hollender’s foundation is itself the work of art, which is owned by the Malmö museum. Physically it consists of 13 boxes, where visitors can post their applications for a scholarship. A text on the wall outlines the foundation’s constitution. The money the scholarship holders receive is intended “to promote insight or further education among cultural consumers with respect to what is commonly thought of as respectable culture”. Applicants must sign a declaration stating that they feel or have felt offended either ethically or aesthetically by culture.Swedish artist uses “unethical” cash to fund cultural scholarships (via We Make Money Not Art)
the latest
latest episodes
This is the guy who exploited victims of human trafficking for a completely useless, unquestioning film about...I'm honestly not sure what it's about. A pasty dude having sex with someone unconscious. I respect his aim of questioning the limits of respectable art, but to be honest, most of the time it seems he is doing it for the ~*~attention~*~ rather than any actual dedication to the question...
Yeah, that isn't ironic, it's just stupid. Sort of like ironically supporting gas chambers. Nope, doesn't work.
only slightly ironic, more telling than "stupid", so it seems we are running out of targets to re contextualize?
"Hmmm... we'd get the best investment from killing babies; lets call it conceptual art."
Damn you forever, Marcel Duchamp, for letting the “Conceptual Art” cat out of the bag.
Guys, did you read the article?
He uses the profits to expose those companies and, at the same time, challenges everyone to not take that money. I find that his angle cuts through a lot of hypocrisy.
Jean
Yes, I did read the article. I came to a different conclusion than you. For what I can tell, he puts his own hypocrisy on proud display.
IAMINNOCENT:
Actually the article says he does not go into their various dealings. So far he has invested 3 times more in guns etc than he has in scholarships.
What is the Swedish word for "dickhead"
Okay, perhaps I'm being a little cynical - but I would ask you to consider the fact that these morally-dubious companies are profiting from the initial investment. I think it's the moral equivalent of robbing Peter to pay back Paul.
Too often the needs of the artist (desire for recognition / differentiation / hype) are placed before common sense.
I'd question whether there are more effective ways of achieving the artist's aims - and what the artists priorities actually are. I can almost hear the sycophantic chat in galleries hosting his work; "My god, so bold - so brave..."
I just find it a little sad.
öh, nöööööööös!
I hope the students who accept the scholarships based on blood money make some really really pretty collages......because then it will ALL be worth it.
The only one unethical is Hollender. Paying women for sex, filming it then acting outraged? Reminds me of those Right wing Christians buying pornography for "research". Except far far worse.
But hey his intentions are honest, right? Keep telling yourselves that.
Okay - I'm starting to recover from my moral outrage, and I've started thinking about this a bit more. It's a social experiment - the fact that the money hasn't all been taken is a good thing... people taking the money is a sign that society is f***ed up.
From what I can tell there are no requirements for the scholarship, other than the visitors stating that they've been offended by culture. There are no lofty aims attached to the award - and I guess this is the point.
There's a high probability that the money wasn't even invested in these companies. All that is important is our expectation that it was invested.
Maybe this work is an extension of the idea that everyone has a price, and that people can be bought? At the same time, in order for the visitor to be 'in' on the 'joke' they need to be educated enough to know how the stated companies earn their money.. highlighting the need for research into how we spend and buy, and the reciprocal nature of blood-money.
Art needs to challenge.. and I suppose this has achieved that aim. It's making me question things. But maybe I'm just becoming one of the fawning sycophants I was describing above. Gah, I don't know.
The article does not say he acted outraged, it states, "When the film was screened on Swedish television it caused a diplomatic scandal, and the TV channel apologized to the Latvian people."
Everyone does realize that most artists are presumptuous attention seekers. They feel compelled to tell the rest of us how they feel, what to think or think about, what they find disgusting or beautiful; art is nothing more than our opinion of their opinion. In the end we are the art. The artist creates in us indignation, serenity, wonder, disgust, love, hatred. Our emotions are the medium. Our reaction is the ultimate expression of their emotions and ideas. They feed us, fuck us, and fuck with us. They enlighten us. They beat us. They poke at our minds and wait in the shadows to watch our responses. They're sick fucks. Don't get me started on actors. That being said, my two favorites are Rothko and Pollock.
Just Say Meh
Ugh. That's some mighty bad art.
I would think he could get a bigger return if he invested in the makers of all the electronic gadgets everyone is so fond of. Y'know, the ones poisoning the rivers in China, chopping down the rainforests, hiring child/slave laborers.
Perhaps I will ponder his "message" while I'm puffing on an American Spirit and chugging down my Harpoon.
Nah, I won't.
LUKAS....don't recover from your moral outrage. This isn't a debate stirred by art.......it is a debate stirred by someone's sociopathic investment portfolio.
Pornography money? Wikipedia anyone?
Sometimes in order to clearly outline a problem for all to notice, artists will take such measures as Hollender. The work is successful not because it is distasteful but because it points to the larger system that is reprehensible.
This reminds me of two things. One is the HOPE scholarship here in GA that was designed to send underprivileged kids to college using lottery funds (but just feeds it's own coffers with desperate folks' money). The other is the problem of the photojournalist who chooses to document local suffering rather than step in and help. The greater good may be served by exposing the wrong to all.
@ #14, Marturin;
:)
Well... I must admit, I found being morally outraged far more fun.
I'll refocus on the badness of the whole affair and see if I can muster any more objectionable thoughts.
@6 "What is the Swedish word for "dickhead""
The swedish word for "dickhead" is "kukhuvud" (approximately), and being a Swede I can tell you it's a fairly apt description of Pål Hollender. Although "pretentious windbag" probably fits even better.
He's that annoying kind of dickhead artist that really gets off on "provoking" people and doing stupid things, claiming it's "art".
A bit of realism here maybe?
The facts:
He is inversting *some* money, not all his money, into non ethical companies. These companies aren't short on capitalization, thank you, and the only way that his money would profit them would be if it contributed significantly into raising the price of their stock: 2 000 euros per company isn't going to have any effect for that. In reality he hasn't had any significant impact.
Then he takes the profits and offers them as 'scholarships', which they aren't at all since any visitor can get the money. Yet *no one* is forced to take it.
The beauty is when he puts as a condition that the taker will declare that he has been "aesthetically or ethically" offended by Art, while he is himself taking blood money. That is kickass art.
Sorry for those who this has put in pain. ;)
Artist Kristian von Hornsleth has started a company selling shares in the arms industry as pieces of art with proceeds going to charity.
http://www.cphpost.dk/get/107311.html
23.05.2008
I am reminded of the movie Serenity. Despite all of the problems with the film, it does raise an interesting moral question. One that is raised here.
In one of the final scenes the hardass (and oddly pudgy) black assassin character (the operative) says, "There will be no place for monsters like me in the world I am trying to create."
This artist is doing things that he considers morally reprehensible in service of creating the world he would rather live in. Unlike our friend the operative who knows that he needs to die for his ideal world to exist, I would imagine that if somehow Mr. Hollender's ideal world were to come about he would probably be the head cheerleader of his own self-appreciation club.
The path of sacrificing your own moral standing and self respect to shape the kind of world in which you would no longer exist is a fascinating one. Sadly, it is generally based on deception, and it almost always necessitates self destruction at the end.
LUKAS
I'm rooting for you!! :-)
I think the introductory paragraph is a little bit misleading / inflammatory - because it refers to a fund for scholarships for 'artists' and not visitors.
If only companies had thought of an artistic angle when being encouraged (forced by boycotts)to divest during the Apartheid Era........
it's worth remembering that most of us have unseen or unknown ties to reprehensible entities. the banks we have money in, the universities we attend, the cars we drive, the computers we sit here chatting with; all of these connect back directly to military investment, environmental degradation, labor exploitation. this art piece is worth something if it reminds us to question the connections at the underpinnings of our own support networks.
well, i'm pleased with the comments... i'd half expected people to be like "cool!" "different!" "avant-garde!" But, yep, you are al correct... it's absurd (but is certainly not "absurdist")
I've always said that, while i'll sell my work to pretty much anyone, there are some whose money I won't take - arms dealers... and well, he sorta covers that list.
I guess if youart has nothing to do with promoting new ideas, making a better world, getting people to think about how they lead their lives, then his shtick is for you.
Cherry Shiva @ 25 is completely correct. It's so easy to sit there and go 'Oh noes! He's investing in unethical companies!', when most likely you have at some point in your life, unwittingly at least, been party to investment in unethical companies. And to your benefit as well. I know I have - I attended university, an institution that was known to invest a reasonable portion of its money in unethical companies, especially arms dealers. This is pretty standard practice for universities - it's a pretty safe investment. Did I leave uni in protest? No. I campaigned to get them to change their investment policy but that doesn't change anything - I've benefited from unethical dealings with unethical companies. I'd be extremely surprised if you'd managed to avoid being so either.
We in the west live in a moral grey area. We'd do well to remember that before we get our step ladders to get on our horse.
My horse is firmly implanted between my buttocks. In fact, surgery would probably be required to get me down.
Two wrongs can't make a right... maybe this is simplistic, but I believe it's true.
I'm assuming the artist wants us to presume the money was invested in the bad stuff - when in reality it wasn't. I'm counting on this lie - otherwise I believe the artist is indeed a kukhuvud.
@jevesthebutler, #21;
I love that idea.
sorry, jivesthebutler (*not jeves)
How high has a horse to be to qualify as a high horse ? I ask because I'd like to invest in a company that breeds some: so ethical.
9 feet high...
I say: wo!
LOL
Agree with CherryShiva, too. We're all intertwined in the fuckery (pardon my French). We can TRY to be ethical in our actions, but none of our hands are completely clean. They can't be. It's almost like the concept of original sin.
Lukus @ 28 - I'm not trying to say that two wrongs make a right. I'm just trying to point out that before getting all outraged, people might want to consider their own morally murky position. You can disagree with what he's doing, but personally I have difficulty putting myself in the role of the White Knight of Moral Fury knowing that my armour's all dirty.
Oh gawd, not Pål Hollender again.
Seriously, this guy is known in Sweden only because he was on their version of "Survivor" some years ago.
Then he made a documentary about prostitution in East Europe which ended with him having sex on camera with a prostitute.
Hollender is good at getting attention for sure. But I've never really heard anyone say anything positive about him or his 'art' beyond that.
Hmmm. If I unpublished every comment from a reader who smokes, drinks, gambles, has a gun or looks at porn, we'd have an empty thread, eh?
Some of the complaints here remind me of charging a man for uploading a video that he didn't make or throttling Wikipedia rather than actually arresting child pornographers. Is secondary outrage the new 'dealing with the problem'?
Damn! The only vice I'm missing from the list is gun ownership. I feel incomplete.
I hate living in the UK.
I really don't see any of those things as being inherently unethical.
I was there when "politically correct" became a word. I was also there when "ethical investment" became a word. I also remember what the world was like before these words came to be. I prefer living in the world that has them. Sure, every generation has to learn everything by itself.
To claim that there is something invalid in allowing anyone and not only artists to accept the money is bizarre. Isn't everyone, in some way, an artist? Maybe just a piss-artist, but an artist none the less.
Stll, h sms lk th qvlnt f th sb-hmn, tlntlss prck f wst f xygn Bnksy. Nice to find that the UK doesn't have a monopoly on such types.
Of course they aren't. If you want truly unethical behaviour then you have to look out for the people selling the pies.
Money vs. culture.
ANTONIUS: "Is secondary outrage the new 'dealing with the problem'?"
I don't know....but even more, I don't know why you would assume that outrage expressed here is an "end" unto itself. Why does Boing Boing post things (or have a comment section) if they do not expect a reaction....and when justified a reaction followed by action?
I'm merely expressing amusement at those who are outraged at someone who invests in evils of which they themselves partake. Unless you live in a cave in the woods, some of your money flows through these dubious enterprises. All that he's done is highlight that fact. Why excoriate the messenger?
because he's there?
Antinous: I'm merely expressing amusement at those who are outraged at someone who invests in evils of which they themselves partake.
Again I think you assume too much.....but I do agree that the sentiment that we should all be aware of the tentacles of our financial actions.
I think anti-semitism is bad too......I'd have problems with someone who killed a Jew as an art display (or had sex with a Latvian prostitute on film to raise women's issues). There is nothing invalid about calling a wrong a wrong....even if it supposedly makes a point.
I cannot speak for others, but my outrage about this is genuine....glad it amuses you.
So...you don't drink, smoke, gamble, look at porn and have never shot a gun? You don't have a bank account? Because if you do, some of your money is moving through these industries. In this project, he hasn't done anything that everyone doesn't do. He's simply confessed to it.
I've spent a fortune on some of the stocks in his portfolio. If I knew what he meant by "culture," I'd go for one of those scholarships ... get some of my money back.
He means the fine arts, no? He can probably find some takers on the thread about the 9/11 felt sculpture by the Ryan couple. Plenty of the insulted and the injured over there.
is Borat ethical?
ANTINOUS
You could make your point more simply by asking if I pay taxes...which makes me complicit in all sorts of harm by default (but ...no to the other things except the bank account). As I mentioned above...the sentiment is valid.
What offends me is the conscious effort to engage in unethical behavior to make an ethics point. Setting aside that the guy is widely regarded as a douche and is probably doing this more as a display of douchery than an ethics object lesson.....we all have violent thoughts..can I punch you to show how that is wrong? People are harmed by many of the things he invested in......on purpose....with intent. Anyone so harmed probably doesn't appreciate his supposed message.
I'm sorry if this became "between me and you" at some point during the exchange. I felt unnecessarily mocked (and assigned false motives) a for expressing an opinion.
If you throw money at artists you
will never be lonely.
A jackass kicks his hind legs in Europe and a little shitstorm ensues round the world.
The object of all this becomes our moral outrage, and both his intent and our morals are meaningless. This is not meant to judge anyone, it is just a statement of opinion.
Noam Chomsky Lecture - Distorted Morality
What the hell do you all have against Latvian prostitutes?
I would put forth the idea that you can be engaging in an unethical activity, recognize it as such, and still tell other people that they should not be engaging in that same unethical activity on the grounds of it being unethical. And more, that this can be a good thing to do.
The statement, "One should not do this" has validity when separated from the source of the message. Though it may be more difficult to recognize the value of the advice when it comes from a douchebag hypocrite, that does not make the original statement incorrect.
A smoker can tell you that smoking is bad for you, and that you should not do it. They might be less convincing, but the underlying truth remains valuable.
Maybe we should approach this douchebag hypocrite's work through that lens?
Jives, I don't think the self-destructive smoker analogy quite fits. It's the allowance, even enabling of harm or wrongdoing that is offensive here. Maybe if a smoker wished to illustrate the hazards of smoking for the greater benefit of all, he would first have to contract a lung disease. Inviting us to watch the artist's decline would make a similar point, I guess.
The artist has found a way to point out the problem by introducing outrage-that way we notice, It's too abstract and easy to ignore to simply state the problem.
As far as your opinion of the artist goes, I think Foetus did a good job of explaining why we are bothered by him;he's a victim, example, and parody of all the things he expresses. Foetus' Modernist painters (Pollock and DeKooning) were self destructive macho types, but pioneers as well. Not that I'm placing Hollender in the same category, but there's a slight parallel. I'm not selling Hollender's personality, though-nor do I buy into it. I just think the work, however horrible, is successful.
@ Anthony
Agreed, the smoker analogy could use some work. Maybe a better one would be an Exxon Mobil exec spreading the word about the evils of pollution.
As far as the "outrage to get attention" angle goes, it really depends on where you stand on the ends/means question. If we assume that he would prefer that these institutions which he is funding (by buying their stocks) stopped existing, his means and ends are in conflict. The eventual end goal is the nonexistence of the organization, and the means involve supporting them by giving them money. If his project does more to reduce the power of these institutions than his money does to increase it, then he has succeeded. The philosophical question, however, is still murky.
On a side note, is the harm done to the image of latvian women by this artist displaying himself soliciting prostitution worth the gains in public awareness? I don't know the answer, but it seems the question to ask.
How are porn, alcohol or guns unethical? One could be unethical with them, but that's true of anything.
I am sorry if this offends anyone, but if a woman wants to rent out her body for sex or be in a porno its bloody well her right to do so! Banning it is the same sort of thinking as an Arab state forcing a woman into the burka.
I drink and look at and make porn. I know about 50 different women who have done adult work... none of them was "trafficed", and all of them made good money and felt good about what they did.
This is just more reinforcement of Xtian dogma... the ideas that; its bad to have a drink, its evil to show pictures of nookie, its unethical to ensure people have the means of defending themselves. Tobacco... lots of people abuse it but again I think its a person's right to choose what to do with their body. The true word of sin is restriction.
I'm sure a similar fund could be found at any major bank or investment firm. As long as one uses the profits for shiny electronics or a new car, there's no problem. Using the profits to fund art? Shameful.
What if the artists ran the TV?
All the ads would be for fine scotch whiskey:
Glenfiddich, Glenlivet, the whole single malt family
--crash test dummies
@ DrHaggis: Exactly. You can invest in the five mentioned and use the profits for luxury goods without being a hypocrite. You'll be at least consistently evil.
Unlike gas chambers, no one is FORCED into buying cigarettes, booze,arms, porn or do a bit of gambling. These are products that are available if and only if you want them. Only an idiot can compare these things to the slaughter houses in Germany. Please, THINK before you speak...or type.
@ Thebes, #61
> How are porn, alcohol or guns unethical? One
> could be unethical with them, but that's true of
> anything.
All of the vice-led industries exploit people - either by exploiting the consumers (who are exploited through addiction), or (perhaps more contentiously, with regard to porn) the producers.
Arms and weapons dealers produce machines designed to seriously injure or end life.
I think it's unreasonable to define a person solely responsible for unethical use of a weapon, when that weapon's sole purpose is to kill. The company who produces the weapon also needs to accept responsibility with regard to ethics.
All of the vice-led industries exploit people - either by exploiting the consumers (who are exploited through addiction), or (perhaps more contentiously, with regard to porn) the producers.
It's difficult to name industries that don't blatantly exploit their consumers or employees for profit.
I agree that the 'artist' stuck with pretty clichéd (almost biblical) choices of unethical businesses. I think it would have been a bit more interesting for him to choose industries that people normally associate with healthy, well-off people and expose the corruption rather than using the worn 'booze, smokes and sex are bad'. Not very groundbreaking. Then again, to me this guy sounds more like some shock activist/journalist than an artist. Does he ever paint, draw or make music sometimes?
my friend sent this to me i reblogged it on Artists Trading Stocks
Markbilly.tumblr.com...
If you are an artist you should be trading stocks...