I am following up on the discussion about the fee for _______’s performance on the occasion of _______’s opening. From my perspective it is pretty clear that _______ got invited by _______ to give a performance that finally happened to be a speech. Following up on how _______ and_______ understood the deal, the invitation was for doing a performance for an artist fee of _______.
The fact that this performance appeared within the format of a speech at the table is consequently secondary and thus not relevant for the honorary question. The fact that some people didn’t get it is part of the format since performance, at least performances of the improvised kind usually play with the expectation of the audience (see Andrea Fraser for example). _______’s performance practice is deeply rooted in this tradition and I suggest _______ interest in his work as well. The reflection on the surrounding social situation is crucial and key in both of their artistic approaches, if you like it or not.
Then of course you know all of this. It comes down to the point that _______ and _______ entered the night with a clear idea of _______ delivering a performance for which you would provide an artist fee. Of course it is very difficult to argue if there is no document we can refer to and also me getting involved into this from the outside afterwards. If you decide to not pay _______ for his performance / work we have to accept this. I personally find it utmost difficult because it would show another example of how money in the art world is distributed. Everywhere but not where the content is actually coming from.
