[Rumori] Illegal Art appropriated

[Steev Hise]

on Tue, 15 Jul 2003 Naked Rabbit told me:

->On Tuesday, July 15, 2003, at 02:59 AM, Steev Hise wrote:
->
->> 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.
->>
->I used to worry about eventual calls from the Mouse about "Gimme the
->Mermaid" until this show.  Now I know the piece has been "canonized" by
->the legitimate art establishment.  It is invulnerable now!

..a bit like how Negativland has become this force that no
lawyers want to touch now. which means once Gimme the Mermaid
comes out on their DVD, maybe no one will be sued even then... or
maybe they will...

->I know that you lose the bad-boy art-terrorist-chic when you go "legit"
->like this, but for me, I never did this kind of work to be a rebel.

that's exactly the sort of point i was hoping someone would make.
Personally I was past what I call the "Glamour of Theft" phase at
least 5 years ago...

I've been talking about 3 "phases" of cultural recycling for a
while, they don't neccesarily always go in this order for
everyone, and some artists oscillate back and forth, but anyway:

 1. The Pleasure of the Intertext
 2. The Glamour of Theft
 3.  (i don't have a zippy phrase for this one) appropriation as
tool for getting other stuff done

It would be interesting to take a survey on where everyone things
they are amongst these.

->The whole point to me is that recontextualizing and representing
->cultural products is a valid artistic expression, and should NOT be
->marginalized and criminalized.  I see the adoption of the show by
->SFMOMA as a step in the right direction.  I don't think "safe" is
->either bad, nor the issue at stake.

The point you say is "the whole point" is, I would think, the
point intended by the organizers of the show, and one I agree
with (and i'm sure a lot on this list agree with. of course!)
But there are other side issues that the show has brought up. I
don't see anything wrong with exploring ancillary issues, and if
one does, it doesn't mean one is disagreeing with the main point
of the show.

So for one more moment I'm going to continue with this SFMOMA
thang - one thing i was trying to get at, is: Having something
hanging in a gallery, any gallery (not just MOMA), is pretty
different than having something for sale as a commodity in the
general marketplace.  Collage is already a form that's been
pretty much accepted in the visual fine art world for a century.
When we talk about draconiaon IP law, when we talk about the
Sonny Bono act, blah blah blah, we're pretty much completely not
talking about paintings hanging in museums, we're talking about
mass-produced stuff.  The corporate sponsors of SFMOMA love the
non-mass-produced, art-object stuff in this show, or at least
they don't mind it. It's not a threat.

However, put out 50,000 copies on DVD of "Gimme the Mermaid," for
instance, and sell it at Tower Video (and don't let Negativland
shield you). I wonder what would happen....?

hmm. i feel like i'm still going to be misunderstood but i'm out
of time, so.... flame away!!

;-)

smh



Steev Hise .  steev at detritus.net . http://detritus.net/steev
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Trying to be sincere robs sincerity of itself."
		-Kenneth Gergen, The Saturated Self
-----------------------------------------------------------------