NO SELL OUT. . . will deploy the gallery space to position images of Malcolm X in tension with commercial culture. Is Minister Malcolm the apostle of capitalism with a Negroid face, or just another exploited poster child? Was his institutional critique of capital a strategy to sucker white socialists? Has this critique been recuperated today as clever slogans to scare some white capitalists and to sell more X product to blacks? (We wonder who profits from these sales?) Mr. X is the serialized signifier that sparks problematic readings and profits in rap music, "political art" and fashionable sportswear. When we see the ubiquitous Malcolm on MTV, is it exposure in the name of business as usual (a mascot for the system he wanted to destroy), or the democratic dissemination of implosive, subversive ideas? How corrosive is Malcolm X as content to the always, already corrupt commodity form? Is X the sign of a meaningful difference, or just another hip style thang? What if Malcolm X was Chairman Mao and we were Andy Warhol? Would the psychedelic appeal shift from being drugged out on love and the desire for fame to being drugged out on a headier cocktail of paranoia and commodity fetishism?

"White Devils" equals dominant white patriarchal power structure. If racism is devilish (and I believe it is), then to the extent that individual whites (or blacks) buy into the racism and white supremacy of this society and its structures, they are "white devils."