Last week I postulated that Art Deco as an art movement speaks a distinctly queer language. This week The New York Times asks how openly and assertively gay artists reflect the emergence of gay culture into the mainstream. It’s a fascinating article that speaks very much to the issue of how art both reflects and influences cultural change. While words are one thing, the work itself goes a lot further in answering the questions. What is gay art? What is it reflecting? How is it reflecting and changing gay culture and the culture at large? Rather than talk about the work of the artists discussed in today’s Times, I attempted to visually represent the leading edge of this supposed new school of art. As a gay man I am of course fascinated by this work and its collective messages, but I’m more curious to know what straight men and women think. However, while I look forward to your opinions I would also postulate that even those of you who are “straight” are, as artists, absolutely queer as well, regardless of who you bed so I’m not really sure you can provide a “straight” perspective…nonetheless…
I am glad that you gave me the answer to my badly asked question last week:
The art embraced by the gay movement now, 3/4 of a century after Art Deco.
Ah, Birgit, but it’s all so complicated isn’t it? Art Deco is color,space, design and form seen through queer eyes. And then we have this political and social art that concerns gay artists “describing” gay culture.
I was fascinated by your post on art deco last week, just have been too busy to learn more. When I read it, it seemed to make sense intuitively, but I’m not sure I trust myself on that reaction. Anyway, regarding this week’s examples, I’m struck by A) these do seem to have some commonality, though hard to define, such that one could perhaps have a chance of picking them out of a random sampling of artworks; B) the artists are all men; surely lesbian perspectives would differ as well as have some things in common; C) perhaps not surprisingly, the majority seem related to defining identity and relationships, especially sexual. What I find myself wondering about at the moment is whether there might be an identifiable gay approach to less central subjects. Would a landscape painting or photograph be different? Of course, it would differ for each individual artist anyway, but I’m wondering whether there are noticeable group characteristics.
Are there noticeable group characteristics among women artists? If we grouped 10 landscapes, five by men and five by women, would we be able to seperate them by gender? Are we only able to distinguish differences between male and female, gay and straight according to subject selection/political social statement? Surely, there must be a textbook on this?
Richard,
I don’t think there are textbooks but I can vouch that there are a lot of opinions about your “distinguishing differences.” In terms of gender, however, the opinions vary widely and disagree vehemently. For myself, I can’t distinguish a female or even feminine piece of art. But I exhibited in a gallery where the dealer insisted that what I did was feminine. I didn’t argue.
And to answer your title question: I would say, it probably depends on your orientation.
I think its totally neat that Art is still going beyond the ‘canvas’. Its one of those rare professions where a person’s identity has equal weight as his/her products. We all know about Jackson Pollack’s crazy alcohol addiction and Andy Warhol’s obsession with celebrity–they only added to the work they produced. And if anything, maybe the product is just a way to grab a piece of that artist? Maybe the art world’s interest in this gay art is filling some kind of appetite? I liked reading in the article, “there are an awful lot of people, gay or otherwise, he added, ‘making intimate, slightly obscure narratives’.” Maybe the art world is done with one-liners and ready for story telling–and for now, those powerful stories are being written by gay artists.
Richard:
Queer = outsider? If the kind of thing that you’re talking about is the product of a circle of people whose mutual terms of reference are not shared by the larger society, then count me in. And I don’t have a gay bone in my body and never have had.
Altogether, the pictures could easily go under another banner. Torsos, Manga copulations and victims of AIDs can be found in non-gay contexts. I tend to think of myself as having decent antennae, but for some reason I’m missing the gayness in many of these pix. Even the picture of the camouflaged gentlemen in the bathroom could be rendered straight with the application of a wig.
Here in Cleveland, gay is almost becoming an alternative kind of straight. Consultants to the city recommend making the town more “gay friendly” as a possible boost to the local dynamic. Everywhere I look, from Boston Legal to kids messing around in front of the local coffee shop, there’s experimentation with gay themes as if to find where they might fit in generally. I would think that all of this could be both pleasing and unsettling to a gay person: pleasing for obvious reasons and unsettling in that one must now come to terms with a larger context that was once hostile – but it’s important to watch your step nevertheless.
Furthermore it might be unsettling to have the gay manner appropriated in ways that disregard original meanings.
Richard,
Can you give us the titles and artists for these pieces?
What I find to link these images is an interest in the body as a vehicle for expression of gender identity, sexuality, and overall expression of self. THere is a pop or commercial edge to many of them that seems to refer to how queerness is “packaged” by those within and outside of queer community. Even the emaciated man is surrounded by bright colors and patterns that point to consumersim on some level.
I am particularly interested in the image of the young man in the Gucci bag with the taped wrist. It seems so desperate, as if he has been abused, but I don’t know what else to make of it.
My mind splits off in several directions at once with regard to the thoughts in this post, Richard.
First, one would think that the emergence of gay culture into mainstream means the end of gay culture.
That would be sad.
Second, I wonder if mainstream acceptance will mean the end of those for whom “being gay” is the defining aspect of their existence.
That would be good.
Third, I think you’re right. All art is queer. Artists have always been on the fringe, and artists have had a lot more acceptance and tolerance for outcasts since forever because we are all social oddities.
As to the first and the second, I doubt it.
Leslie, simply go to the New York Times article and you’ll find names and links to all the artists included in my post (except for one…he’s a mystery artist.)
Richard,
When I go to the link I don’t get all these pictures, just the guy in the Gucci bag and the group photo.
Is “Gay Art” too much about sex?
D..
I liked your comment better before you edited it.
D,
Wasn’t Judy Chicago asked the same question about Dinner Party with respect to the movement she was championing?
Arthur,
I liked my first unedited post too but I decided not to bring in the third person (gay friend) for legitimacy of my (our) thoughts.
Sunil,
I think Chicago, as an individual, had much wider ambitions, well beyond titillation.
Richard and all,
I’m of two minds about this post and the responses. First I liked Leslie’s comments on the quality of the art — I found they made me go back and look at the photos again and again.
What didn’t make sense to me, though, was Richard’s title: “Queer art: or is all art queer?”
First, of course, the title could be a play on words — the obvious homosexual use of “queer” and the older (?) use of the “queer” meaning strange or uncanny or unusual. I’m happy with that.
But then, juxtaposing a wordplay meaning against the photos weights and changes any notion of wordplay — the subject matter is definitely queer in the sexual orientation sense.
So then I thought about the audience that Richard said, in the past, he was addressing — he’s really rehearsing for a longer work addressed, I think I’m remembering correctly, to a queer audience. In that sense, the contents of the post would be a delight for his intended audience, as we all want to be thought of as originals and as parts of a group. So it would be a compliment. And good for the intended audience of a group of like-minded fellows.
But for the A/P audience, the title seemed provocative, meant to jab a bit (unless we were to take the play on words as the intended focus). And in fact, if I remember the wordplay while I’m looking at the photos, I find the photo essay somewhat funny. Of course, art is strange and uncanny, and of course, the notion that all art is about the sexual relationships of two (or more) men is strange and uncanny. Also a bit silly, since art is about a whole lot of other stuff.
I think that art which features activities normally associated with gay men is definitely in the same category as the Dinner Party, although they aren’t about the same subject (ie Sex), since the DP is focused on Great Women and their gender as evidenced by the motif of the vagina; and Richard’s photos are focused on a vision of ordinary (and perhaps extraordinary) gay men as evidenced through the multitude of attitudes and appearances that they appear in.
Finally, if you are an artist, and your sexual orientation is gay, then I think that yes, indeed, all art is gay — just as all the characters in your dreams are you. I don’t believe that as artists we can divorce ourselves from ourselves, and so in that sense, whatever sexual orientation or desires or habits or relationships we hold will be part of the art.
So there’s a disquisition in words which perhaps will make Richard tear out his hair in despair. Richard, do you have enough hair to tear out?
Right D – and that is what I was hinting at. I also think that some of the art that Richard talks about above have greater ambitions than just titillation (maybe I just misunderstood your previous question).
Certainly I do not want to limit the interpretation of the works above but the overall scope seems more of the bachelor. The gay life I’m familiar with is less dramatic.
June,
“Disquisition?” Hey! A new word! Cool.
(Disquisitive being generally appropriate adjective for your comments. :)
I thought the whole idea of using the “Q” word was it’s double meaning, but then, a great aspect of gay culture are our little word plays in which incidental similarities convey more possible meanings with the ambiguity intentional. Rather like art.
Oh no, actually art.
Rex — some people say “tome” but I think disquisition is a politer term <snort>.
On the question of whether landscape paintings or photographs might be different depending on orientation and/or gender (comments 3-5), I came across an interesting article at the online journal Invisible Culture. The writing is quite academic, which is not to everyone’s taste, but I found it readable and insightful. Unfortunately, it does not deal specifically with visual art. Here’s a taste:
I am interested in gender issues in general, and have never posted anything on the internet. However, recently my art tutor said that i should view my work as part of a particular culture, so looking at representations of culture on art sites helps me to understand this. I think that the distinction between ‘male’ and ‘female’ art is difficult-nevertheless it is an issue in out culture that I feel needs to be addressed. I draw and paint those around me. Representations of my boyfriend I have found particularly profound as they seem to reverse roles in art-the male model and the female artist. So far I am having difficulty expessing my ideas about gender in society because my way of working is quite traditional. However, I still find photography and other media fascinating and powerful-for example some of the pictures on this site.