Purchased objects, peg board, metal hangers, price tags/stickers.
2007
Installation and performance at "Collection", Diego Rivera Gallery: SFAI, San Francisco, CA. Fully functioning store placed
inside the gallery setting, selling products gathered by the artist at cost, operated by the artist 7 hours daily for 6 days. 

ART IS A COMMODITY, TOO.
?: Tell me about your recent installation in Diego Rivera Gallery at San Francisco Art Institute.
KLF: The week of Nov. 4 - 10, I installed a fully functioning store placed inside the gallery. I sold new products gathered the weekend before, hand picked expressly for sale at the exhibition. I personally preformed operating the store 7 hours daily for 6 days. The store consisted of items that costed anywhere from $1 to approximately $50.
?: So, the items were actually for sale?
KLF: Yes, each item/object was for sale at the price I paid and if possible had the original tags attached. I wanted to challenge my audience to participate in actual monetary transactions in the gallery setting, in an attempt to bring attention to the commodification of artwork and artists in the 'art world.' I was not sure if the viewers would have a true interest in actually participating in the work by purchasing the items and I was very happy that many people felt comfortable to ask me questions about the work and purchase the 'pieces' for sale. In fact, in all I sold 27 items. I am still not sure if this success should be considered a victory or an irony.
?: You made a point of dressing in clothes and accessories that were for sale during your performance, I assume that this further lended to your comments on commodity fetishism?
KLF: Absolutely, it was definitely one of the more transparent elements of the installation but it served to portray both the act of selling one's art and one's self simultaneously. I was selling myself symbolically by selling my taste, the products of this project were gathered purely by the means of arbitrary attraction. I am not unaware of the allusions to prostitution that this act illicited.
?: Did people attempt to define you by the products you chose to sell?
KLF: Without a doubt. I don't blame them, though, because the installation's title alone invited the viewers to do so. In a sense, I asked them to, I wanted them to. During the exhibition, many people commented on the overall content of the objects themselves. I experienced them trying to link each item together into a unifying category...some asked if the grouping was "woman-centric" and others dismissed it as "fashion." Somewhat surprised, I was only able to respond by saying: "I set out to like things and these are the things that I liked." If the artwork is gendered, it is because I am gendered, I cannot help but be a product of my surroundings. How can one truly explain their proclivities and how do others find the authority to evaluate those traits?
Back to Top