Gay Art and Exhibitions

Gay Pride is about the closest thing to Mardi Gras New York will ever have. I myself checked out the parade of drag queens with nicer legs than me (and walking forty blocks in four inch heels no less!). As I drank in the spectacle, I started thinking to myself about the "gay aesthetic" I was noticing around me. How is this aesthetic expressed in the fine arts, I wondered? What is gay art?

I googled “gay art,” and my first few clicks brought me to some truly kitschy, borderline pornographic portraits of musclemen. After some specifying of my search terms I was directed to the Leslie-Lohman Gay Art Foundation and Gallery.

In the Foundation’s own words, it “is a non-profits arts cultural institution established in 1990 to be a safe haven for that art which is often excluded from main stream exhibitions and textbooks and looked upon as taboo or less than important” by historians and critics. “We at Leslie/Lohman,” says the website, “are doing our part by seeking out those artists who exhibit the knowledge, desire and skills to achieve a recognition that gay and lesbian art exists not in a vacuum but as an integral part of art history.”

The art selections on the website were quite unexpected: a vast majority of them are, in fact, still mildly kitschy and graphic, one might even say pornographic. That is not to say some of the art isn’t decent, but I now started to think about this definition of “gay art.” I understand that sexuality is, obviously, at the core of the gay experience because it is what differentiates a gay person from a straight person. But does a gay aesthetic have to singularly be about sex?

This also made me reflect on other artists in minority groups—what about black artists? Is there a “black art” that solely expresses or focuses on the black experience? If gay art devotes itself to extreme and graphic depictions of the "defining characteristic" of homosexuality (sex), does a black aesthetic have to focus on the most extreme and defining characteristics of the African-American experience? If this were the case, an obvious qualifier would be Kara Walker’s powerful silhouettes. They reference a quintessential moment of African American history (slavery), and refuse to let the viewer ignore the painful and graphic truths of black exploitation. But, of course, lots of African American artists address highly political and personal experiences specific to the black community without the resorting to Walker's incisive visual language.

Perhaps a more appropriate comparison for gay art might be to feminist art. With the feminist movement of the late 60s and early 70s, women artists created socially-minded works that were undeniably gendered, reflecting women’s experiences. But some would argue that the biggest stride for female artists’ equality was when they were finally viewed as simply artists, not women artists, defined by their gender. Isn’t that what the gay rights movement fights for? To be regarded as individuals first, and not be defined strictly by their sexuality? There are many successful and well-respected artists who happen to be gay. One "house-hold" example would be Annie Lebovitz; her sexuality hardly defines her artistic output, and she’s one of the most famous photographers in the world.

I did come across an exhibition that focuses on gay culture in what I think is a far less graphic but no less celebratory way. To commemorate the Fortieth Anniversary of the Stone Wall Riots in New York, the National Portrait Gallery of London just opened an exhibition called "Gay Icons," to recognize the contributions of gay people to history and culture. Ten gay men and women of distinguished and varied professions were invited to curate the exhibition, and select portraits of their inspirational icons, gay or straight, that uphold the sanctity of human rights. Such "selectors" include musician Sir Elton John, actor Sir Ian McKellen, and novelist Sarah Waters, while sitters include artist David Hockney, politicians/activists Harvey Milk and Nelson Mandela, and Ellen DeGeneres.

As for gay art, perhaps I am one of those critics who, as the Leslie-Lohman gallery says, looks upon the genre as "taboo or less than important" than mainstream art. Ok, yes, I think it's a little kitschy: guilty as charged. I just wonder if such graphic images help or hurt the general gay rights movement: will bible-thumping conservatives change their single-minded conceptions of gays as sex-crazed deviants, when “gay art” itself seems to largely (if not strictly) focus on the gay sexual experience?

At this very important moment when gay rights is finally making some overdue legislative progress (at least in America, hopefully), the National Portrait Gallery exhibition (July 2--October 18) seems an ideal celebration of equality and inclusiveness. I am not calling for the eradication of a "gay art" genre, but, in my opinion, this is not a time to be alienating sympathizers in the larger straight community with pornographic imagery. Gay rights isn't just about sex, it's about basic human and civil rights--something every man and woman, gay or straight, deserves.