***

[2nd floor projects]: C O L L E C T O R S - new work by Jill Miller.

Comment: Jill Miller goes undercover for six months to surveil the homes (and lives) of approximately ten Bay Area art collectors "within the legal limits of the law" (according to the leaflet), "focusing on five of them in depth." Why? Out of "interest in the ways that the legal system protects (or challenges) an individual's right to privacy." The results of her covert operations, performed "under the advisement of a private investigator," are impressively presented in the gallery as a labyrinthine installation of mainly photographs and notes interspersed with occasional surveillance-based works of art.

So I'm like instantly appalled, putting myself in the position of these involuntarily conscripted collectors, imagining someone secretly following me around for six months with a camera, taking notes on my activities, monitoring comings and goings at my house, rummaging around various aspects of my life. I ask Miller what the deal is, mainly 'cuz I don't know anything about surveillance or what's legal or not legal-- like, for example, presenting clandestinely gathered evidence of people's lives in a public place without their knowledge or permission, priced and for sale. And she tells me it's all legal, and she did it under trained supervision, and not to worry. But what gets me is the imperiousness of her attitude, like I must be either stupid or crazy to even question her motivations or any aspect or ramification of her surreptitious adventures. Like how dare I impinge on her imprimatur!

You know... Miller's minuet with the perimeters of better judgment kinda reminds me of the most expensive work of art ever made-- "Piss Christ" by Andres Serrano. That icon of insensitivity has cost artists and arts-related endeavors everywhere many hundreds of millions of dollars to date, and we're all still paying for it. The moral of the story? The issue is not so much whether it's legal, but rather whether it's appropriate.