[Rumori] Illegal Art appropriated

[kembrew mcleod]

Quoting Steev Hise <steev at detritus.net>:

> hey, some people in San Francisco ripped the Illegal-Art site:
> http://illegal-art.com/
> 
> it brings up some really good points. like:
> 
> "how can such work be said to be outsider, outlaw, illegal, when
> it is showcased by the corporate-backed SF MOMA? Perhaps such
> irony is deliberate. Still, if such work is "illegal," then does
> that make the art by everybody else "legal'? What does that mean?
> Does that mean accepted, legitimate, even tame? Even ? gasp! ?
> Mainstream? Inside, Outside. Us and Them. Are these boundaries
> really so absolute? "

the fact that the site was created by someone whose piece was rejected from the 
illegal art film show undercuts its "critical" stance and strikes me as sour 
grapes, and really lame. 

anyway, jeez, it's just a title--illegal art. even though i'm included in the 
show, i'm not *deeply* invested it. it could have been put together by somebody 
else (though i'm not sure anyone could've been done a better job than carrie) 
or it could've been called something else--i don't care. 

he'd be right if it was just "illegal art" and hadn't been attached to a theme 
issue of a magazine and if it hadn't generated lots of discourse in the media. 
it's not like it's a one-dimensional show or concept.


as for corporate-backed sf moma, i guess you can call me a sell out. i've been 
called worse.

best,

k

*******************
kembrew mcleod
1218 college st.
iowa city, ia 52245
kembrew-mcleod at uioa.edu
319-341-3583