Are the Empire State Building and the Golden Gate Bridge queer?
In response to my “tribute” to the Empire State Building, Karl asked a simple question that caused me to do an extraordinary amount of thinking. This post is the answer and it’s hardly a simple one.
I was gushing over my life-long fascination and love affair with the Empire State Building and its powerful iconic nature. Karl asked: “How much of your attraction to the building has to do with the architectural style itself? At first I couldn’t’ see how to separate the two but after a while it dawned on me that there was much more to the question than was immediately apparent.
I went back to my copious files of Manhattan photographs and quickly noticed two things that I’d not noticed before. First, my eye tends to prefer architectural and design elements of the Art Deco movement. Secondly, Art Deco may very well be the gayest and perhaps even ultimate and defining gay art movement. It’s easy to see this in Cole Porter and the sophisticated sets and characters of 1930s Hollywood, but what about in the Empire State Building, Rockefeller Center and many of the luxurious apartment buildings soaring above Central Park West?
I’ve often argued that sexual orientation defines us in many more ways than just how we use our genitals and various orifices. No one argues with the notion that there are distinct male and female perspectives that profoundly color philosophy, art, politics and religion. The same, in my opinion, is true for gays and lesbians. Speaking as a queer, it is simple-minded, absurd and self-loathing for us to define ourselves or for non-Queers to define us simply on the basis of the sex act. The sex act is merely one manifestation of different wiring. One can easily and without controversy see the undeniably masculine in architecture and art and the same can be said for the undeniably feminine. Our society is less comfortable recognizing and accepting that the same can be said for a queer perspective. Obviously, we glibly joke about the gay man’s sense of style and how it takes “a queer to make something pretty.” In fact, there is a queer sensibility in art and style that is as distinctly different as the heterosexual masculine is from the heterosexual feminine. And no, I’m not talking about naked men; I’m talking about the use of line,form, texture, color and light in a way that is not quite masculine, not quite feminine but rather queer.
Are there shades of gray? Of course. As there are shades of gray in human nature, there are shades of gray in the artistic manifestations of human nature.
That said, I’m proposing that the Art Deco movement, magnificently exemplified by two of America’s greatest and most widely known icons, the Empire State Building and The Golden Gate Bridge is the consummate queer art form. In fact, are these two compelling landmarks the lodestones that drew queer Americans to New York and San Francisco? Are these two landmarks artistic manifestations of specific urban cultures that were most welcoming to and nurturing of queer psychology? Or both?
Born out of the chaos and revolutions of the First World War, Art Deco is an art movement involving a mix of modern decorative arts largely of the 1920s and 1930s, whose main characteristics were derived from various avant-garde painting styles of the early twentieth century. Art deco works exhibit aspects of Cubism, Russian Constructivism and Italian futurism with abstraction, distortion, and simplification, particularly geometric shapes and highly intense colors celebrating the rise of commerce, technology, and speed.
The growing impact of the machine can be seen in repeating and overlapping images from 1925; and in the 1930s, in streamlined forms derived from the principles of aerodynamics.
The name came from the 1925 Exposition Internationale des Arts Decoratifs Industriels et Modernes, held in Paris, which celebrated living in the modern world.
It was popularly considered to be an elegant style of cool sophistication in architecture and applied arts which range from luxurious objects made from exotic material to mass produced, streamlined items available to a growing middle class.
Anyhow, that’s the official definition of Art Deco but I’m proposing a very different one: The ultimate artistic expression of modern queer nature.
One cannot deny the flourishing queer sensibility of urban culture and the entertainment industry of the 1920s and 30s. How much of it was enabled, nurtured and inspired by the powerful environmental and visual vocabulary of Art Deco? Or was Art Deco just another manifestation of some underlying and pervasive social shift? Or both?
As I sift through my many photos of this city and consider my profound attraction to all things Art Deco, it becomes obvious to me that there is a unique, remarkable and profoundly emotional queer language found in this art form, a fantastic hybrid of masculine angles and sensual form interpreted with a unique color palette creating a style that is uniquely queer. Our society uses code words for Art Deco: stylish, cool and sophisticated but these are just euphemisms for queer. And I am in no way claiming or boasting that the queer perspective is superior (as suggested by words like cool and sophisticated) to a heterosexual masculine or feminine perspective, I’m just saying that it’s unique and distinct and a fully honed and definable perspective that deserves much more recognition than reality TV shows about makeovers and home design currently provide. Society is comfortable referencing masculine and feminine in art and architecture, not so comfortable–to say the least–referencing queer, so we use code words like “sophisticated.” Does this mean that heterosexual artists can’t produce “sophisticated” work? It depends on how you mean the word. Sophisticated in the style of Cole Porter, Versace, Sondheim, Warhol, Bernstein or Philip Johnson? Leave that to queers.
Of all the high-end luxury wristwatches available to the well-healed and/or self indulgent gay man the Cartier Santos stands out. Gay men seem drawn to its design in disproportionate numbers. You’d be hard pressed to find a gay man however who actually knows that this watch was one of the first examples of Art Deco design and that it was designed in 1904 by Louis Cartier for a gay man, Brazilian aviator and flamboyant queen Alberto Santos-Dumot. The commission was to achieve a wristwatch–which until Santos-Dumont–had been exclusively a high fashion accessory for women–that captured the spirit of the early days of the machine age and aviation. instinctively, it also seems to have captured something else,something that gay men in 2007 still sense and pursue. There’s just something queer and sensual about it. PS In those days, “masculine” women preferred pocket watches.
Thanks for your eloquent article. As president of the Art Deco Society of the Palm BEaches and author of the upcoming Art Deco of the Palm Beaches, I would have to totally agree with your commentary. Society and art and culture are all connected. I do think that Art Deco is totally gay, and although I am straight, my attraction and dedidication to the style would propabably be explained that I am a sucessful public mural artist. This profession is certainly more of a masculine profession than a femine one?
Heh,
I checked out that watch, Richard, and all I can say is, “Oooh. I want one.”
Once more, you’ve done a truly well thought and artfully presented article.
It has long been my suspicion that gay artists sublimate the creation of children into the creation of art. I know that is exactly how I feel. Art is my contribution to future generations.
Some years ago, I read something in Plato that said much the same thing… I don’t think it was the Symposium… Drat. Anyway, he was talking about couples, and how though two men do not make babies, they made many redeeming cultural contributions.
As to whether Art Deco is queer or not, I cannot say emphatically, but it definitely pings my gaydar.
interesting post. could do with more analysis, but i think you are definitely on to something.
Are Audrey Beardsley and Gustav Klimt considered art deco artists?
Birgit: Beardsley and Klimt are Art Nouveau, not Art Deco.
Richard,
Very interesting post. I have no idea how valid, or general your argument is in the specific example of Art Deco. As a general idea, sexual orientation & gender specific aesthetic sensibility is fascinating to think about. I like the basic concept because I see sexuality as an essential evolutionary ingredient to the basic aesthetic sense. Appreciation of nice looking food is also important, obviously.
What where the queers turned on before Art Deco came along? You are presenting a viewpoint here that could be used to rewrite art history. I hope you take this further. Remember that the key to making a useful theory is that it has to be potentially disprovable. This is the problem (or advantage) with Freud’s, he establishes a viewpoint that can’t be proven wrong, only ignored.
Are we still in Art Deco, or has Art Deco evolved into something else?
Neolithic
Ancient Egyptian
Ancient Greek
Ancient Roman · timeline
Medieval
Gothic
Hindu Architecture
Islamic
Romanesque
Traditional Japanese
Renaissance
Baroque
Victorian
Romantic
Art Nouveau · timeline
Richardsonian
Arts and Crafts
Neo-Classical
Art Deco
Early Modern
Prairie Style
Bay Area Regional
Modern – long list
Expressionist Modern · timeline
Deconstructivist Modern
Corporate Modern
Post Modern
High Tech
Expressionist
Vernacular
African Vernacular
Neo-Vernacular
Richard,
Could you explain?
This profession [public mural artist] is certainly more of a masculine profession than a femine one?
Sharon,
Could you explain why you think this?
Karl? Explain the list? Oh sorry, in response to Birgit’s question about what followed Art Deco, I was just listing “architectural styles”, in particular calling attention to the various “modernist” styles that followed Art Deco, very much focusing on the notion that huge glass boxes are interesting (my prejudice is showing).
Karl,
In answer to your question I feel that painting murals can be more masculine than femine…….. while climbing on 2 tier scaffolding and ladders, wearing work clothes spattered with paint, construction boots, carrying 5 gallon buckets of paint, I just don’t feel as feminine as my friends who who wear nailpolish, 4″ high heels and lots of jewelry. ( Of course, on the weekends I can express my feminine side if I choose.) But painting murals is extremely physical and a lot less “damsel in distress”…..Visit my website http://www.BySharon.com
Dear Richard,
Definitely, there is something to it… No doubt. My own obsession with Art Deco came even before I realized I was into boys, at the tender age of 10 or 11. Here is my question: Art Deco has always been referred to as “masculine” art, as opposite to Art Nouveau, which in turn is usually referred to as “feminine.” It is the former that is a magnet for gays, not the latter. Any thoughts?
Yours,
Rexie
If Deco were an intrinsically gay form, then we would expect few or no straights to have “gotten it” enough to do good work in it or in allied genres. Given the huge popularization of Deco and Moderne in industrial and commercial design, the culture would have to have been pretty much crawling with Teh Ghey, and no doubt would have attracted a lot more wrath from goody-goodies and would-be protectors of the public morals – right down to the shapes of car fenders and the packaging of toothpaste tubes. It didn’t happen.
Another thing: it’s not really fair to judge the “masculinity” or “femininity” of a style, or even an era, by the gender typing of the present day. Check beyond the common wisdom of academia and you’ll find that masculinity, especially, wasn’t quite so one-dimensional before WWII and the cold war as it later became.
Great piece – food for thought, even though I differ with your conclusions.
i guess deco conveys an aspect of the feminine, whilst having streamlined, often masculine edges and symmetry. so maybe it appeals in that way? im not gay and i like deco, but i’m a little more feminine-artistically inclined too. maybe your average cliched hetero jock doesnt notice all those purdy buldings to even decide whather he likes it or not?
i think the more pertinent question relates to the homosexual community seeking validation through external forms. a persecuted section of the population will often be (whether conscious or not) insecure about their identity.
you dont need a building to ‘justify’ queer culture. if you like it, you like it, dont ‘own’ it in the name of the queer. you cant have it. heteros like it too and we were more than willing to share … :)
perhaps more energy into redressing homophobia, etc…?
mooby,
I haven’t previously come across the idea that symmetry might tend to be a masculine trait, but it sounds plausible in a pop psychology sort of way (which is how I normally take such assertions). It will be interesting to consider that as I look at art in future.
Perhaps anyone who even thinks about their identity is insecure to some degree, which is probably a good thing, but regardless I think it’s very natural to be interested in and explore one’s identity. I didn’t feel there was any attempt at justification or ownership, concepts which, as you say, don’t exactly make sense here.
For anyone interested, I came across what looks to be a fairly significant book on this topic.
I fell in love with Art Deco at the age of fourteen, in a cool antique store one afternoon with my parents. I was fascinated with it, and as I looked, around, I realized the young man tending the shop that afternoon was obviously gay. But he was kind to me and my little brother, which was more than you can say for some people. He wanted to tell us about everything, was helpful. Perhaps there was an affiliation with the style, it is certainly over the top and exciting, which is why I collect it. But I do not believe it is exclusive to gay men, in fact , a fellow I used to work with, who was also gay, didn’t really get into the style too much and was even bored when I would discuss it with him. Deco is simply in and of itself, gorgeous, flamboyant, mysterious and stately, bizarre at times, theatrical certainly, but the beauty of it, is that it has something for everyone., be it streamlined chrome, zigZag Terra Cotta panels or those kitschy Frankart green nude figurines. I collect those, but it doesn’t classify me as a lesbian because I like them. It is an art form, pure and simple, and I hope it goes on forever. Buy antiques and vintage, support preservation, before its gone.
Good for people to know.
Just lucked onto this blog. Fascinating theory, with the underlying thesis resonating with the Native American Two Spirit tradition (I write as an intrigued Englishman). Of course it’s absurd to define a person by such narrow criteria as genital fun. . .except sexuality does affect the aesthetic, if only the attraction to specific types of human physical beauty/sexuality which will inform a subsidiary attraction to line, form and content. Question: do a straight female and a gay male share the same attraction to the naked male body?
Perhaps it’s worth looking at known gay artists and seeing if their art was demonstrably different from their contemporaries. Or would that only prove most if not all artists are either gay or bisexual? And why stop at artists. . .