He said the work was taking their money, unless the contract specifically said
“The artist shall utilise the bank notes to visually reproduce a specific artwork, such as the Mona Lisa. The bank notes should form the actual colours and contours of the artwork, and the final piece should not be a mere abstract interpretation.”
Maybe it did and that’s why they got the money back, but if not I’d side with the artist
“The artist shall utilise the bank notes to visually reproduce a specific artwork, such as the Mona Lisa. The bank notes should form the actual colours and contours of the artwork, and the final piece should not be a mere abstract interpretation.”
Maybe it did and that’s why they got the money back, but if not I’d side with the artist