Support Hyperallergic’s independent arts journalism. Become a Member »

Support Hyperallergic’s independent arts journalism.

Danh Vō (left) and Bert Kreuk (right) (via YouTube screenshot and Artdaily)

This week the ongoing legal feud between the Danish-Vietnamese artist Danh Vō and the Dutch collector Bert Kreuk took another turn toward infantile name-calling. After a court in Rotterdam made the unprecedented ruling last month that Vō must make a new, “large and impressive” artwork for Kreuk within the next year to settle their dispute, the artist — who plans to appeal the court’s decision — made a very public, satiric, and offensive proposal to Kreuk. But, wait, why again are these two adults behaving like toddlers embroiled in a sandbox shoving match?

Kreuk claims that Vō agreed in January 2013 to create one or more new works for an exhibition of pieces from his collection at the Gemeentemuseum in the Hague, Transforming the Known. Under the terms of the agreement, according to Kreuk, he would then pay Vō €350,000 (~$379,000) to acquire the new work for his collection. However, before the exhibition opened on June 8 of that year the artist provided an existing work, “Fiat Veritas” — a cardboard box with gold leaf whose title translates to “Let There Be Truth” — and signed a loan agreement with the museum. The collector had an injunction placed on the work to prevent the Gemeentemuseum from returning it to Vō when the exhibition closed in September 2013. A year later, still having not received the new artwork he claims he was promised, Kreuk filed a lawsuit against the artist.

On June 24 the lawsuit was decided in Kreuk’s favor. The judge ruled that Vō must make him a new artwork, for which he will receive the sum the pair allegedly agreed upon in early 2013, €350,000. If the new work is not delivered by June 24, 2016, the ruling stipulated, the artist and his dealer Isabella Bortolozzi will have to pay €10,000 (~$10,830) for every day it’s late, up to €350,000. “Although [Vō] has artistic freedom,” the judge noted in her decision, “he will have to talk to Kreuk about the design of the work.” Under the terms of the decision, Vō was ordered to cover Kreuk’s legal fees and the collector was told to return “Fiat Veritas” to Vō. However, the collector has since obtained another injunction to prevent the return of the sculpture because he claims Vō has yet to pay his legal fees.

Earlier this week, ostensibly in an attempt to “talk to Kreuk about the design of the work,” Vō sent the collector a letter describing the piece he intends to create to settle their accounts. Vō’s “proposal,” sent from the general email address of Artists Space — where he is listed as a member of the “40 Years Artists Space Program Fund” and a supporter of the current Tom of Finland retrospective — reads in full:

Dear Bert,

I am writing to you to make the following proposition as fulfillment of the court’s verdict. However, you must understand that I insist that my site visit to the Gemeentemuseum in January 2013 did not lead to an agreement about a commissioned work. Your friends director Benno Temple and chief curator Hans Janssen of the Gemeentemuseum, as well as your art advisor and uncle by marriage Theo Schols made, in my opinion, false witness declarations: the amount of $350,000 was never mentioned, neither that I ‘spoke specifically about figures/numbers’, nor that after the supposed agreement I was ‘jumping around for joy’. I will make sure all of this will be corrected in the appeal proceedings. As you are aware, I have already instructed my lawyers to begin this process.

Notwithstanding my decision to appeal – and with reservation of all my rights and defenses – I am prepared to execute the court’s verdict, and propose a new work based on current themes in my practice. I refer to works, which I made for the Danish Pavilion in the 56th Venice Biennale 2015, which take the form of writing by my father, Phung Vo. His writing has been a continuous part of my production since 2009, which I have publicly announced as my most important contribution to the arts.

Considering the requirements as set forth in the verdict, I will propose to make the following work:

For your residence in Panama as well as in room 38 of Gemeentemuseum, I will have my father Phung Vo execute a site specific wall work, in which he writes out the following sentence indicated below; it is a line delivered by the demon from the film ‘The Exorcist’, which – as you may know – constitutes a source of inspiration for my latest body of work. You may voice your preferences with regard to its design (as far as a selection of fonts and colors are concerned) and manifestation to the extent it will become as impressive and large as you find fitting for the amount of $350,000:

SHOVE IT UP YOUR ASS, YOU FAGGOT

I would like to hear from you in writing before Wednesday 22 July, 2015 if you accept my proposal.

Best regards,

Danh Vo

Kreuk, unsurprisingly, was not amused by the letter and its homophobic punchline. “It is like I landed in some kind of surreal world. Artnet News had Danh Vo’s letter before I did,” he told Artnet News. “The court ruled that both parties should be in touch with each other in a ‘professional way’ and to ‘normalize relations.’ I do not think this type of behavior is what the courts meant by that.”

It’s unclear how much longer the Kreuk v. Vō affair will go on, but their inability to resolve this disagreement like adults, without resorting to injunctions and insulting emails, is a sign of startling immaturity. Since nothing constructive can come from this dispute, perhaps the best we can do is vote on which man is acting like the bigger baby.

Take Our Poll

The Latest

Opportunities in December 2021

From commissions to residencies and fellowships for artists, curators, and teachers, a list of opportunities that artists, writers, and art workers can apply for each month.

Benjamin Sutton

Benjamin Sutton is an art critic, journalist, and curator who lives in Park Slope, Brooklyn. His articles on public art, artist documentaries, the tedium of art fairs, James Franco's obsession with Cindy...

3 replies on “Poll: Who Is the Bigger Baby, Artist Danh Vō or Collector Bert Kreuk?”

  1. Hard to imagine being an ass to someone willing to pay $379,000 for one of your works. And why does Kreuk even still want one? Sounds like a major case of love/hate on both sides if you ask me.

  2. I am on the Artists Space mailing list and did not get why i was getting this message. In my opinion Artists Space is wrong to take sides, it’s not like I was even aware of this lawsuit. He’s “so great” but I was like “oh great another TMI show from DAHN VO and his personal memorabilia collection done in Refined Special Spiritual Ways”. 1%-er artist problems should not be shoved on anyone’s throat.

    Reading further I understood the collector is a serious flipper. No matter what the problem of that is, the collector is PAYING for the work and apparently there was an agreement in place?

    Whatever the issue is, BOO FREAKIN’ HOO please KEEP YOUR 1%-er problem and your ridiculously profitable sad-sack immigrant tales to yourself now that you win every award and show at Marian Goodman. Rwanda it ain’t. OH MY GOD I AM SO SORRY FOR DAHN VO A COLLECTOR WANTS TO PAY HIM 1/3 OF A MILLION DOLLARS FOR CARDBOARD BOXES WITH TEXT ON IT ABOUT BEER AND HIS PERSONAL LIFE MEMORIES THAT PROBABLY COST $99 TO MAKE AND HE IS SO SAD HE IS COLLUDING WITH THE ALBINO DUDE WHO ONLY SHOWS DEAD PEOPLE FROM ARTISTS SPACE TO SPAM PEOPLE IN NEW YORK BECAUSE EVERYONE WILL BE OUTRAGED BY HIS PREDICAMENT. NOT. “OH MY GOD I FEEL SO SORRY FOR DAHN VO” – SAID NO ONE.

    HEY DAHN VO
    I HAVE BILLS TO PAY.
    YOU ARE TURNING MONEY AWAY BECAUSE YOU ARE DEEP AND SPECIAL.
    I CAN’T RELATE.
    GOODBYE.

Comments are closed.