ISSUE NO. 2: GRΣΣD
GRΣΣD. Mortal Sin. Hubris. Drive. 21.09.2012
The rules of the evening were simple:
1) Pay 50¥€$
2) Pick a ball
3) Free Champagne
4) See What You Get
30 works were exhibited.
25 of them were frames filled with bills of money.
5 x 100€
5 x 50€
5 x 20€
5 x 10€
5 x 5€
5 frames were filled with works by Jann Holstein, Anne-Sophie Kneer,
Sebastian Lechner, Filippos Kavakas and Peter Feiler.
During the evening, 2/3 of the exhibited works were bought. All works were assigned by lot to their buyers.
[Just like time and love, money also belongs to things, which actually do not exist. Time runs as fast as one can make a paper moth out of paper money. You throw it in the air, it transforms to a butterfly, which lands on the earth becoming a caterpillar and lies down on a white canvas sprayed with color.
Money and art - both are colorful papers. Both only a vague promise which one must rely on.
The following interview with money philosopher Annika Schlitte supports this argument:
Tagesschau.de: Frau Schlitte, why is it important not only for economic scientists but additionally philosophers to analyze money?
Annika Schlitte: One could see in the financial crisis that there exists a huge uncertainty about what money actually is and what consequences it could bring. The economic sciences neglected the interpretation of money for a long time. In an economic introduction I read, “Money is that which takes effect as money.” This definition at first reveals very little.
Tagesschau.de: Why is it a bad habit if humans only aspire to gain money - by states in comparison it is tolerated if the political action adjusts to money?
Annika Schlitte: The positive feature of money is it’s non-character, its neutrality. However with humans, a non-character is something bad. Somebody who only aspires to gain money without trading it for something else doesn’t determine oneself.
If it is true that money is art and art is money, then perhaps there is some truth in this interview, ultimately prompting one to substitute the term money through art…
Tagesschau.de: Frau Schlitte, why is it important that not only economic scientist, but for philosophers as well, to consider about art?
Schlitte: One could see in the finance crisis, there exists a huge uncertainty about what art actually is and what consequences it could have. The economic science neglected the interpretation of money for a long time. In an economic introduction I read, “Art is that which takes effect as art.” This is a definition revealing very little at first.
Tagesschau.de: Why is it a bad habit if humans only aspire to gain art - by states in comparison it is tolerated if the political action is adjust to art?
Schlitte: The positive feature of art is it non-character, its neutrality. However, with humans a non-character is something bad. Somebody who only aspires to gain art without trading it for something else doesn’t determine him- or herself.
The daring activists of tonight are determined: They´ve put all their money to win money that is actually art or art that is actually money. In each case more colorful paper is added to the confetti party.
Let´s start the lottery machine.]
Extract taken from: Short Speech to State of the Union Address, 2012
by Severin Peters
Installation view MEAT & GRΣΣD Installation view here
