Talk:K Foundation Burn a Million Quid

Buddhism?

There is buddhist parable of a very virtuous layman who sank his vast wealth in a lake so it would not corrupt others, and I think there may be other parallels in Buddhism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.203.35.145 (talk • contribs) .

As far as that goes, I've seen a modern re-make of this story, in a Thai movie called "69". A heap of money is left accidentally in front of a girls door. She tries to claim it, but as more and more people involved with the money turn up and die, she eventually drops the whole suitcase of money into a lake.

Anyway, I'm not particularly convinced this K-foundation project had anything to do with Buddhism... I'd say its modern art at it's prime - if modern art aims to provoke, than burning a heap of money is about as provocative as it gets. This act stirs up more emotions and controversy than ten other modern art projects combined. --213.172.246.40 15:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting comments and some food for thought too. Thank you. --kingboyk 10:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

and of course there is the native north american tradition of the Potlatch, where rich people hold parties and give gifts so that wealth is spread around and jealousy is reduced and community harmony promoted. Although perhaps the Rites of Mu fits more in to that mould than the burning. - Drstuey 10:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge?

We have info about the burning across two articles. I wonder if this ought to become an article about the K Foundation burning a million pounds rather than an article about the film? Alternatively, we could start again with a blank page, and paste back in the non-editorialising material which is really about the film, move other good material to K Foundation, and discard the rest. Thoughts? --kingboyk 15:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Keep this article as about the film, i.e. including the screenings and film history. Move the analysis and reaction to the K Foundation page section. Update all the links on other pages that go to this page to go the K Foundation page section instead.  ?????

I seem to remember that I included so much info in this page because I was scared that someone would pull a 'this didn't happen' line, or a 'the analysis section is original research' line. By making the page about the film, I felt I could get that info in more easily. - Drstuey 10:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I dunno. It's quite hard. Whoever wrote these articles - you, presumably - has a tremendous knack for telling an interesting story, but didn't cite anything :) We also have to try and shape the material to fit into some sort of sensible structure, to give each stage of the KLF's career the best chance of becoming a Featured Article - quite a lot has changed in the organisation of the KLF articles since these were written. (There's for sure enough material to get at least one FA for the K Foundation, btw).

I've taken the knife to K Foundation art award today, but K Foundation still troubles me as does this article. Don't get me wrong, I think this is a great article but I've no idea how I can move it from being a great read to being a Featured Article on "burning era" K Foundation. More difficult still is what to do with K Foundation itself - I suppose that needs to become a summary piece.

Anyway, I'll plod on adding facts and juicy quotes from the sources and see what we get :) --kingboyk 20:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

hey hey, no, there was no citing done in those days, back in the mists of time. Yes large portions of the writing were copied from the KLF mailing list FAQ, which I wrote the first version and then others added to. And yes there are swathes and swathes of original research about the place which I had hoped would stay in there without refs, but hey ... I agree it is difficult what to call the article, since it is about more than the film itself, however The K Foundation burn a million quid is not exactly an encyclopedic title (much as, as a fan, I like it) - K Foundation money burning episode is more encyclopedic? cheers Drstuey 10:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's an acceptable title, because "burning a million quid" is invariably what they called it. Whatever name we choose, we have to keep "million" in there - otherwise they might have burnt a fiver which isn't quite as sensational :) Since we both like the title let's keep it this way for now, it's easy enough to change if anyone complains or comes up with something better?? --kingboyk 11:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Travel article

where can this new article be used - http://travel.guardian.co.uk/countries/story/1,,1842557,00.html - I have already used it in future screenings. - Drstuey 10:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice article, but not sure it adds much in the way of fact we haven't already covered. Anyway, leave the link here I'll see what use I can make of it when I next do some KLF work, if you don't do it in the meantime :) --kingboyk 10:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Lighter fluid

There's a link to Lighter fluid, which was a redirect to butane but is now a disambiguation to 4 types of lighter fluids. Which is the one referred to in this article? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

No idea boss, no lighter fluid experts round here :) --kingboyk 13:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

presumably it is butane, as the compound in cigarette lighters, but it is not appropriate to link directly to Butane, that would be confusing for non-chemists surely. Hmm, I've forgotten what the reference actually says, exactly, about the moment, I mean did Gimpo squirt fluid onto the cash and get the matches out and was stopped just in time or did he stand there shaking the can of lighter fluid and matches for ages, threatening, calling Rachel Whiteread's bluff? Drstuey 09:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

From what I've been reading, he was fumbling around for the fluid, presumably he then he got the money soaked because he said he had it covered in petrol but was told to wait for 2 more minutes. Whiteread ran out of the Tate with a couple of heavies and they grabbed the loot. --kingboyk 10:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Title is horrendous

• It is a statement
• "Quid" is slang

To better follow wikipedia convention, this article would be better moved to "K Foundation Money Burning Stunt" or similar - PocklingtonDan 15:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Its the name of the book about the event (intended as an art event, rather than a mere stunt). The film title adds a "Watch". So its the name of the book, almost the film title and the name of the event they describe. Bwithh 15:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, but as such all words other than conjunctions should be capitalised (i.e. "K Foundation Burn a Million Quid").FrFintonStack 21:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Propose move to "The K Foundation Burn a Million Quid" As I see it there are three ideas for the article title: Book title, film title, and description of the event. The description of the event could be worded many different ways, but the book title has the added benefit of also describing the event. —Dgies^t c 16:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course quid is slang, but it's how they refer to it in the title of the book and film; this article is trying to describe book, film and event (per Dgies). "The K Foundation Burn a Million Quid" is alright by me. I suspect if we ever get this to FAC - which we ought, as there's a solid article here - the reviewers will have more to say about the title anyway. --kingboyk 12:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a difficult one this, and I don't mean to bring the discussion to the edge of the "What is art?" abyss. However, I think that since the K Foundation used money as art, their burning of the million quid was, as well as being a symbolic action, also intended as an art event in its own right, in the physical tradition of Richard Long. Because of this, it seems entirely reasonable to me that the title of this article - which documents the whole event - is retained but Capitalised as "The K Foundation Burn a Million Quid". The book and the film are both very important façets of that event, but the article is conceptually bigger than both of those. The film serves to formally record the burning, for posterity and for audience involvement at the subsequent tour of discussions; the book records the burning and the discussions for the involvement of the reader. Vinoir 22:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. The book is K Foundation Burn a Million Quid —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vinoir (talk • contribs) 22:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Legality

Were there any legal issues associated with burning a million quid? Andjam 03:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Various articles from the period seemed to suggest that this had been a concern, but that it was concluded to be completely legal. Actually, should this be mentioned in the article? –Unint 04:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't see why not. Do you have the articles to hand which mention it? --kingboyk 12:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm mainly thinking of this: "Their lawyer confirmed it was not illegal." I can only read the antecedent as being the act of burning. –Unint 20:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Regret?

I notice that, in 2000, Drummond stated that he never regretted it and never would. (Although that interview is very different in tone compared to the 2004 one cited here.) Is there a way to reconcile this? Should it just be mentioned as an apparent change of mind? –Unint 04:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I should think so, yes. I'll take a look at that later today. To be honest, I don't recall if I'd finished trawling through the sources on this one, whether the source you mentioned I didn't have or if I just hadn't got it to yet. Either way, I'll take a look and also reassess the article. Just glancing at it now it seems pretty good.

By the way, if you want to improve the articles you don't have to ask :) It's appreciated that proposals are made first where big changes to FAs are concerned of course, but this isn't one of those :) --kingboyk 11:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. I already quoted from that piece, but I think the quotation you've picked up on will help the narrative nicely. I'll be using it. Thanks for the spot :) --kingboyk 12:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

K Foundation Burn a Million Quid

There's rich pickings in the book regarding audience responses and questions, testimony from Jim Reid and Gimpo, and candid sentiments from Bill and Jimmy. One of the things I'm currently doing is working through it to find the significant bits.

There's also a photo of the car plunging down the cliffs of Cape Wrath, taken by one Drew Farrell. It's taken at distance, so you can't actually see that the figures running to the cliff edge to look are Bill and Jimmy. And talking of long shots, do you think a scan of this photograph would constitute fair use, given it's an unrepeatable occurrence? --Vinoir 00:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)