Throughout history, art has been used as a driving force behind political activism and as a catalyst for social change across the globe, and nowhere is this truer than in the forum of gay art. Classifying what exactly it is that constitutes ‘gay art’, however, is problematic for many reasons.
Firstly, what does it actually mean to be ‘gay’? When one considers that homosexuality as a social phenomenon was only officially recognized in the mid nineteenth century, does this negate the art of Michelangelo in the Sistine chapel with its representations of vibrant male nudes, for example, from being included in the gay art canon? Is a piece created by a gay artist such as American Ross Bleckner, automatically labeled as ‘gay art’ regardless of whether or not it directly represents gay subject matter?
Would a series created by a heterosexual artist, such as photographer Nicholas Nixon whose highly controversial 1988 series of images depicting people living with aids, fall under the same banner? And most importantly, should so called gay art necessarily be classified as a separate sub-category of the larger art community solely by virtue of the sexual proclivities of its creators or the subject matter it depicts
Before the relatively recent emergence of the discipline of queer studies, the history of art in the western world has largely left out most material that has direct relevance to gay men, lesbians and the transgendered as a subculture worthy of representation. Truth be told, a great deal has been deliberately suppressed through homophobia, much has been lost due to neglect, and a distressingly large amount has simply been overlooked for fear of controversy or ‘social pollution’.
The latter being in the minds of those in power who see it as their role to assume a moral high ground and limit gay artists access to forums of public display and dissemination.
Without a doubt, it would be fair to say that an artistic identity is directly shaped by a myriad of key social factors. As individuals we are influenced by issues of gender, ethnicity, race and sexual orientation that shape who we are and how we view the world. In so many ways, life experience directly informs the artist and guides them in negotiating the world of artistic endeavor, directly reflecting reality as they see it in their work.
Historically, depictions of homosexual love and eroticism in art – albeit largely male-centered – are nothing new. The way they have been presented to the world at large, however, sadly seems to have followed the same limiting series of constraints. For example, although homosexual love and eroticism was not only integral to, but indeed rife in ancient Greek mythology, visual arts, and civil society, it was for centuries thereafter ruthlessly suppressed and hidden, often considered the works of pagans and deviants.
It was not until the Italian Renaissance that the rediscovery and reemergence of the shared classical and humanist past of gay and lesbian love and expression once again come into the foreground. A handful of brave artists such as Dominic Cresti with his controversial Bathers at San Niccolo and Bartolemo Cesi with Two Men Kissing were brave in their portrayals of homosexual imagery, but by and large, the homosexual nexus had to be carefully finessed, somehow disguised by the artists of the day for fear of condemnation, ostracism and sometimes even death, as clearly portrayed in another famous painting of the time, The punishment of sodomites by Nicholas Honeberg, which depicted gay men being burned at the stake as punishment for daring to love.
While it would be manifestly untrue to say that the cause of gay art was not championed and furthered in the intervening years, through artists such as the American Paul Cadmus with his images of the everyday experience of gay people such as the iconic 1934 Fleets In it was not, surprisingly, until the 1960s and 1970s that a few leading American artists brought gay concerns to the forefront of the art world and thus helped to provide a foundation for the flourishing of queer art after Stonewall. The now historical New York gay riot which was the catalyst for the birth of the gay rights movement, came about as a response to the overwhelming social conservatism that had succeeded in not only objectifying but in criminalising same sex love.
Artists such as Andy Warhol, who transgressed gender boundaries in his famous repetitions of icons of American consumer culture, and David Hockney with his languorous paintings of bathing boys, did much to bring the cause of gay art into the spotlight.
Another key figure, Robert Mapplethorpe, who infamously both furthered and hindered the gays arts movement with his sadomasochistic photographic images that kick started the infamous arts censorship movement under politician Jesse Helm, did much to bring the realities of what it meant to be a gay artist struggling in contemporary society to the masses. All pushing a deliberately gay agenda, sometimes not intentionally, that lay the groundwork for the culture of gay art as it exists today.
So where does the future of gay art lie? Since the inception of the world wide web, countless online galleries have flourished for the queer artist – particularly in the arena of lesbian art and artists which has hitherto been woefully under-represented.
Bodies such as the Leslie–Lohman Gay art foundation and the fledgling UK-based Gay Artitude seek to provide a forum for the works and ideas of queer artists who often face difficulty in having their work on show at more mainstream venues.
One hopes that someday, the history of queer art will be taught in our schools and the very need for the such categorisations as ‘gay art; becomes obsolete, as society accepts the fact that queer art as a body is not art only for, by, or of homosexuals but is also created for the entertainment and enlightenment of all members of society.
