[Rumori] Illegal Art appropriated

[Vicki Bennett]

I agree that it legitimises something... ANYTHING... to put it in a 
gallery, or a bank, or...

My question would be does this art stop being interesting once it's 
taken out of context, ie out of the gallery/later seen as no longer 
immoral or illegitimate.  Certainly stuff like Tim Maloney's Little 
Mermaid will always be interesting, because it has many contexts to 
it, it will still be around when everyone has forgotten that 
appropriation was once legally questionable.

The name Illegal Art is just one more tag to put on something to 
focus people's attention.  What's the point in wasting good publicity 
with an indirect name.  It's the only reason I don't throw up when 
someone asks me to do an event called "Plunderphilia" or similar. 
How else are you going to get non-insiders through the door.

And yes - ?? - absolutely.

Vicki

>Perhaps this stuff, at least the visual art side of it, isn't as
>dangerous as we like to think? Maybe once you hang "fine art"
>stuff in a major gallery (these days at least, not forgetting
>Warhol vs Campbell's, et al) it is de facto "safe", unlike
>more mass-produced, commodity culture like CDs and books and
>movies.
>
>??
>
>smh
>
>Steev Hise .  steev at detritus.net . http://detritus.net/steev
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>"Not even Adam Smith thought the market could do everything."
>		-Benjamin Barber, 'Jihad vs. McWorld'
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Rumori mailing list
>Rumori at detritus.net
>http://detritus.net/mailman/listinfo/rumori
>older archives: http://detritus.net/contact/rumori/