[Rumori] Illegal Art appropriated

[Brian Flemming]

"Illegal" seems pretty specific to me. I.e., contrary to the law, as is  
"Superstar," as is work based on copyright infringement.

 From reading the publicity about this exhibit, I never got the  
impression that "illegal" was to mean "outsider" or "not tame." It just  
means that distribution of the work is legally actionable. A work could  
be "illegal" and still be tame.

------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
-----
Brian Flemming
email: vagrant at slumdance.com
blog: http://www.slumdance.com/blogs/brian_flemming/
------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
-----

On Monday, July 14, 2003, at 02:11  PM, kembrew mcleod wrote:

> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rumori mailing list
> Rumori at detritus.net
> http://detritus.net/mailman/listinfo/rumori
> older archives: http://detritus.net/contact/rumori/
>
>