One afternoon in 1996, Russian artist Alexander Brener entered the Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam, approached a painting by Kazimir Malevich called Suprematism 1922–1927, and spray-painted a dollar sign across its white surface. Brener remained in the museum until he was escorted out by the police, jailed, and eventually put on trial. The museum accused Brener of damaging its property, which resulted in the loss in value of the work. The museum required Brener to pay the difference between the monetary value of the painting before and after Brener defaced it. Brener’s defense consisted of arguing that what he did was an artistic expression.
Brener claims that art is not an independent cultural entity but has become another type of commodity that is governed by contemporary capitalist economics. By disassociating the original art object from the artist’s intent, could Brener be more Dada than the Dadaists?
For me, the value of a work lies a great deal in how it communicates to an audience, what it says about the state of our world and the state of the individual. If an artist like Brener encourages such a dialogue then surely he is onto a good thing. Even if it does mean leaving a trail of destruction in his wake.
