Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
James Payne

GET UPDATES FROM James Payne
 

Homophobia in the Arts

Posted: 21/12/11 00:00

The issue of homophobia is not something you would expect in the art world, however a recent 'work of art' in America prove this is not the case.

The following article was written with Texan born Dr Michael Petry whose book Hidden Histories: 20th Century Male Same-Sex Lovers in the Visual Arts showed there are many practices within the art world that keep openness at bay.

Recent cases include the misleading signage at many Rauschenberg exhibitions, which mention his marriage and child but not his long-term sexual partnerships with Cy Twombly and Jasper Johns (amongst others). Twombly himself prevented the Tate from including that information at his retrospective in 2008.

While internalised homophobia amongst older members of the LGBT family is bad enough, outright hostility in the art community still happens and is unacceptable. As in the following case.

On 29 November in Houston, Hiram Butler, an out art historian and gallerist, was verbally assaulted and physically threatened by the straight art duo Michael Galbreth and Jack Massing who go by the tag The Art Guys. They called him a "a coward and an evil fuck" and accused him of being "an unhappy homosexual."

When he ordered them off his property they stepped up the intimidation and he had to call the Police. Butler has been one of the more outspoken members (gay and straight) of the Houston art community who have found The Art Guys insensitive (at the least) and provocative or worse (in the meanest explanation) after their recent decision to marry a tree.

Their performance The Art Guys Marry a Plant was seen by many as an opportunistic and offensive riff on gay marriage in the USA, which is hotly contested by conservatives and the religious right.

According to Douglas Britt, who interviewed the duo for the Houston Chronicle, Galbreth told him: "I don't even care about that [the gay-marriage issue]. It doesn't even warrant discussion. I'm happy that the issue is out there because it helps promote us, in a crude sense, when the people mistakenly think that it's a political gesture, which to my mind, it's not" adding that the issue was "a mechanism for us to crudely piggyback on." As Britt wrote: "The work inadvertently reinforces a 'slippery slope' argument that labels gay marriage as a gateway to allowing people to marry animals and other non-human partners."

In the end The Art Guys decided that they would offer the work to the Museum of Fine Arts as a permanent piece, and were turned down, as did Rice University and the Menil Collection. But when Toby Kamps the curator at The Contemporary Arts Museum who had commissioned the work, moved to the Menil Collection, he decided they should take the work.

Their antics were seen as offensive by many in the LBGT community, but as Butler stated; it is perfectly fine for artists to be outrageous or even stupid and offensive, but public institutions do not have that luxury. Unfortunately the Menil Collection, under Kamps, accepted the tree on 19 November 2011 in a public dedication ceremony.

In the future I am sure the Menil will feel ashamed at their participation in such a fiasco. What made this all the more offensive was that the tree was planted next to the Rothko Chapel on the site of the Carter Menil Human Rights Awards, an area traditionally used for LGBT memorial services for people who have died due to AIDS related illnesses in the 1980s when many churches refused to do so.

Showing their total lack of understanding of the anger they have caused, the duo held a reception in their studio featuring an exhibition of their works called Mountains Out of Molehills. The tree was slightly damaged (the top broken off) and many in Houston believe it was the artists themselves who did it in order to generate even more publicity.

The artists know well the many silly arguments put forward by opponents to equality, that gay marriage will lead to marriage between people and animals as well as adults and children and inanimate objects. Trees for example. Marrying a Tree fell into the hands of opponents of gay marriage as a political gift.

On a more tragic level, the number of gay teens bullied is on the rise in America as are the number of suicides. This reckless attitude towards the LGBT community by artists is their prerogative, but a public institution really should know better.

 

Follow James Payne on Twitter: www.twitter.com/PAYNESHURVELL

The issue of homophobia is not something you would expect in the art world, however a recent 'work of art' in America prove this is not the case. The following article was written with Texan born Dr...
The issue of homophobia is not something you would expect in the art world, however a recent 'work of art' in America prove this is not the case. The following article was written with Texan born Dr...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 10
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
14:50 on 22/12/2011
This is a very interesting and informative debate. A good read. Although I find it a bit worrisome that the debate seems to be moving away from the merits of the actual work itself and instead moving towards a personal attack on the artists. That smells bad and seems to be a very 'slippery slope'.
14:05 on 21/12/2011
It's important to note that The Art Guys' piece fails, not because they're anti-gay or because its intention was anti-gay, but on the merits as social sculpture, their chosen medium. You can't make a social sculpture while ignoring the social context in which it occurs. You can't claim you're blurring the boundary between art and life while doing the opposite (each of The Art Guys is married to a woman, and they didn't even stay superficially committed to the tree; they outsourced its "care" to the Menil Collection, which provided no security for the piece even after warnings it could be vandalized). You can't claim the response to the artwork will shape its meaning, then dismiss all responses you don't like as assigning the wrong meaning to it.

The Art Guys/Menil response has been disingenuous every step of the way. I've elaborated more on this subject but apparently I can't link to my new platform, Reliable Narratives, in comments, so I guess Google it and/or my name, Devon Britt-Darby, to read more. (Ironically, the "Around the Web" links below James' story send readers to an article from a more "credible" outlet that smears me as "meth-filled" in the headline. Nice.)
12:41 on 21/12/2011
the LGBT family
-------------------------------
Is there a straight family?
01:04 on 21/12/2011
A couple more points I feel should be made: A distinction should be made between casual heterosexism and its accompanying blinders, which is what I believe The Art Guys and the Menil Collection, both of whom generally hold the right political views on gay rights, are guilty of rather than homophobia.

Also, I'm not getting the sense from reading this post that you tried to contact The Art Guys or the Menil -- the attribution overall could be clearer -- and one of my "quotes" is actually paraphrased, which is only going to make it easier for the The Art Guys and Menil to dismiss your valid points.
10:36 on 21/12/2011
Thanks for your comments Devon. Please feel free to post your quotes verbatim here. I would argue that heterosexism with its bias towards the straight community and exclusion of the LGBT community may not be overt discrimination per se, but does perpetuate homophobic behaviour and beliefs. Art institutions both here in the UK and the US should be aware that this is a wider issue than 'artistic freedom'.
12:56 on 21/12/2011
Thanks, James. I'll post the verbatim quote (which you characterized accurately, just not as an exact quote although it was within quotation marks), along with a bit more context in the story, then respond a bit more in a separate comment:
----
http://www.chron.com/entertainment/article/The-Art-Guys-big-fat-not-so-gay-wedding-1750050.php

Press releases notwithstanding, this “behavior” doesn’t blur the boundary between art and life. It draws a bright, bold outline between art and Galbreth’s and Massing’s lives, at any rate. The same federal government that recognizes the Art Guys’ trademark also recognizes their real-life marriages to women.

But when it comes to the boundary between this artwork and the lives of gay and lesbian couples — even those in states where gay marriage is legal — the piece blurs it much more effectively. As far as Uncle Sam is concerned, their unions have no more legal standing than the Art Guys’ marriage to a tree. Of course, it also inadvertently reinforces the “slippery slope” argument that if we let gays wed, next we’ll allow people to marry animals, and so on.
13:15 on 21/12/2011
I agree with your basic point, James, and no one's been a more public critic of The Art Guys' piece and the Menil Collection's acceptance of it than I. As an artist and critic myself, though, nothing trumps artistic freedom for me (and no scare quotes are needed). The Art Guys' piece fails on the merits, not because it's anti-gay -- in fact, I would have had more respect for an honestly homophobic work that had something real going for it than their piece -- but by the standards of social sculpture, their chosen medium. You can't make a successful social sculpture that's willfully oblivious to the social context in which it occurs, and you can't claim to blur the boundary between art and life while doing the opposite (The Art Guys remained married to their wives and ultimately outsourced the tree's "care" to the Menil, which ignored warnings that vandalism was easily possible and likely).

For more on this, see http://reliablenarratives.wordpress.com/2011/12/20/the-art-guys-double-down-on-the-stupidity/

It's worth distinguishing between heterosexism and homophobia; pointing out the former without accusing its practitioners of the latter may help them realize that merely voting the right way on a given issue isn't enough. Of course, that requires their being willing to truly listen and engage in open, honest dialogue, something The Art Guys -- and certainly not the Menil -- haven't done so far. Now that you're giving this international attention, maybe the Menil will.
00:16 on 21/12/2011
In some respects it's even worse than you think. The Menil planted the tree in March; accepted it into the collection in June very silently, in a manner at odds with how The Art Guys promoted the mock wedding; and had then on Nov. 19 had the dedication ceremony with very little advance publicity other than what I gave it by criticizing it. By the time of the ceremony, in other words, it was too late for public objections to make a difference.

The tree was more than slightly damaged; it is now little more than a stump. I was not aware "many in Houston" believe The Art Guys did it, but whoever did it should know that vandalism is not the appropriate response to a bad artwork, even less so when it is a living thing. (I staged what I felt was a better reponse: an performance artwork of my own in which I, an openly gay man, legally married a woman I barely knew on the stage of a gay strip joint -- marriage license and all -- to highlight the fact that in Texas and most of the U.S. a travesty of a marriage like this is accorded more rights than long-term relationships between gay couples, whose marriages have no more legal validity than that of The Art Guys to a plant.)

-- Devon Britt-Darby (formerly Douglas Britt)
11:50 on 21/12/2011
Hiram Butler has said that ‘As soon as I heard the tree had been accepted, I called Josef (Helfenstein, Menil Director) repeatedly to talk to him about it. He would not take or return my calls. Just before it happened, I emailed him as a friend and respectful colleague to express my dismay. His email response was essentially that I focused on a narrow interpretation and am "quarrelsome".’

It is often the stance of the offender to blame the victim (the old homophobic panic defence when a gay man is murdered is a standard trope) and as regards to institutional homophobia (a topic I have written at length on), so often it is a wilful unknowing. The UK official MacPherson inquiry found widespread institutional racism in the Stephen Lawrence murder. The police and other institutions were aware of the issues but did not act on them. Institutional homophobia exists and functions in a similar way. The Menil had to know how this work would be seen by the LGBT community, as LGBT people work for and with them on a daily basis including Hiram Butler. As Douglas points out, the whole planting event was rushed through to prevent a dialogue, and it is hard to have a dialogue when the institutional member refuses to speak and while the artists make physical threats.

Of course things are getting better and optimism is something we should hold onto, but equally we have to point out problems and demand change where needed.
13:29 on 21/12/2011
You are right, Michael -- the Menil had to know how the piece would be seen, not only because of its LGBT employees and colleagues, but because it had been publicly criticized for its disingenuous "piggybacking" (Michael Galbreth's word) onto the gay-marriage issue at the time the mock wedding was staged.

Even if Josef was on one of his perpetual flights to Europe at the time -- the man is seemingly ALWAYS on a flight to Europe, especially if a reporter wants to talk to him -- Toby Kamps certainly knew; he had I had talked about it face to face before the performance, and he gave the same "gosh, we don't want to hurt anybody" reaction he did two years later.

They knew, and they decided to do what they wanted -- I believe, to placate one of their trustees, Michael Zilkha, to whom the tree is dedicated along with his wife Nina -- and wait for it to blow over. Maybe now that this is getting picked up in Europe, they'll have to pay attention.