The court subtracted a fee for the artwork and for the display of the work, which he does not have to give back - so the artist did in fact get paid for his empty frame artwork. Now he just has to give back the money he lent for the originally agreed upon artwork that he did not create.

Seems like a fair deal, since he also got a ton of publicity out of it.

What if the museum were to put up a sign that said "This is not art"?

It doesn't matter if it's art or not. They commissioned a specific thing, and he did not make that thing. If I commission a painting, and the artist gives me a pencil doodle instead, I can admit the latter is art but still demand a refund.

Additionally, he pocketed the materials they provided for that thing, which were not part of the commission fee. This is straight up theft.

To illustrate inequality? Surely his artwork does that. Just not in the same rigid structure they imagined he would.

I don't know exactly what was specified in the contract, but he himself has admitted that he is in breach of contract.

This is not some mystical, mysterious thing that cannot be defined. It's a product. They ordered a product, he delivered the wrong product, and they are well within their rights to pursue legal action against him.

Art as a product? Really. We both know that is a topic of much debate.

Further, they ordered a redo of a creative effort. They understood it would be substantially the same as the referenced work. He deviated significantly, creatively.

Oh well. It's all their business I guess.

There's a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_the_Court in here somewhere, I just know it...