sexuality and art
Melynda Reid
In article <1994Mar4.0...@bvc.edu> (rec.arts.fine), daike...@bvc.edu writes:
> >I think your premise of sexual preference affecting one's work is a little
> >off base, unless you're just trying to prove your own personal ideas.
i agree with the above writer. the only way sexual preference affects an artist
is if he or she prefers to indulge in sex or discussions about sexual preference
instead of engaging in the hard work of creating art.
> "All great art is at one time or another _linked_ to sex."
> Art in itself is but a reflection of the artist. By
> analyzing a piece, one trained in art can make almost precise hypothesis
> on the mental and emotional state of an artist.
i disagree with both statements. sex is yawn but a fleeting pleasure. art
is not a statement about self, either directly or indirectly. it is absurd
to limit art so narrowly to a reflection upon the artist. the logical extension
of this attitude would be to eliminate all art divorced from the person of
the artist.
> >Great
> >art reaches beyond our transient identity (gender, social status, race) and
> >illuminates our ultimate spiritual identity.
i agree with the statement above. great art allows us as human beings to be
freed from the limits imposed by biology and society.
> "Well, that's all very nice, but let's get realistic for a moment."
> And assuming we do have an ultimate spiritual identity, how do we know
> it's being enlightened? How could we, trapped in our own transient world,
> even begin to imagine, let alone ever _know_ what it would feel like? To say
> we did would obviously have to be a personal delusion on a grandiose scale.
your realism is no more reality based than a television comedy. great art
frees a person from his or her transient trap. until great art springs you from
your own world of self then you remain caught up in the grandiose delusion
that art is simply a relection of the artist.
m.c.reid
melynda reid who wears hats but does not type caps
eel: mel...@titipu.resun.com or nosc.mil!titipu.resun.com!melynda
snail: p o box 378 greensboro, florida 32330
Malgosia Askanas
>the only way sexual preference affects an artist
>is if he or she prefers to indulge in sex or discussions about
>sexual preference instead of engaging in the hard work of creating art.
I don't understand this point of view. Obviously the particular
sensibilities of the artist, the way the artist views the world,
have a significant role in shaping the art. What the artist infuses
with desire is part of his/her view of the world. Do you disagree
with these statements?
>sex is yawn but a fleeting pleasure.
As is life itself. So?
>art is not a statement about self, either directly or indirectly.
Some art is. But I would say that all art is _infused_ with self.
I don't know whether this is the same as being "a statement about
self". Why _is_ Michelangelo's David different from Donatellos?
Did not their respective selves have something to do with that?
>it is absurd
>to limit art so narrowly to a reflection upon the artist. the logical
>extension of this attitude would be to eliminate all art divorced from
>the person of the artist.
Why would saying that the self plays a role in art imposes any kind
of limitation, or imply the desire to eliminate anything?
>until great art springs you from
>your own world of self then you remain caught up in the grandiose delusion
>that art is simply a relection of the artist.
I don't see how the question of whether sexuality affects art implies
the supposedly grandiose delusion that art is _simply_ a reflection
of the artist.
I cannot speak on this subject in the "plastic arts", but in both film
and performance the artist's erotic orientation frequently does reflect
itself in the work. I don't mean that the work necessarily _talks_
about the erotic orientation, but there is an influence.
A while ago there was a prolonged discussion of this topic on
rec.music.classical, and people pointed out ways in which
homosexuality affected music. I see no reason to suppose that the
same is not true in other arts.
Melynda Reid
m...@dsd.camb.inmet.com (Malgosia Askanas) writes:
> What the artist infuses
> with desire is part of his/her view of the world. Do you disagree
> with these statements?
i disagree with the view implicit in some of the discussions here that
art is fused with the life of the artist. art can also be regarded by
artists as a form with formal boundaries between the self which creates
and the art which is created. there are a number of approaches to this
issue. artaud chose the former. i choose the latter.
the concept that sexual orientation is important information about
artists who did not make their orientation explicit strikes me as very
strange. not all homosexuals are alike. not all heterosexuals are
alike. even knowing the sexual orientation of an artist provides little
or no information about technique or philosophy or religious views. it
is in my opinion as false as gender as a category for evaluating the
worth of a work. sexual orientation is at best an abbreviated
description of a human being.
> I don't see how the question of whether sexuality affects art implies
> the supposedly grandiose delusion that art is _simply_ a reflection
> of the artist.
i was ironically appropriating the word flights of the person whose
writings had impelled me to respond. art is not necessarily a
reflection of the artist. the whole notion of art as self expression is
a modern conceit.
> I cannot speak on this subject in the "plastic arts", but in both film
> and performance the artist's erotic orientation frequently does reflect
> itself in the work.
in the sculptural or plastic arts the artist engages in an athletic
communion or interaction with the material. monumental sculpture if
done by hand entails a great deal of physical energy. the artist as
self, as sexual being is often displaced by this task. it is not at all
the same as the relation of a performer to an audience. in some ways
those who see too much film or performance place too much importance
upon the knowability of the artist.
erotic orientation and sexual preference are political categories not
human ones. my friends in the arts show a wide variety of sexual
orientations not easily bifurcated into homosexual versus heterosexual
camps. it seems somewhat rude to speak about the sexual orientation of
donatello or michelangelo. the latter had very little time or energy
for sex. it tells nothing about his work. his poetry to tomasino tells
much more about his heart as does his poetry to vittoria colona as well
as his letters to his father. i think it much more important to know
that he loved other people than to know his sexual practices.
i also suspect that artists are being placed into categories sexually
for which there is little real evidence. to me it is a diversion of
resources from more fruitful enquiries. but that topic i will address
in a different article.
Malgosia Askanas
Melynda Reid wrote:
> the concept that sexual orientation is important information about
> artists who did not make their orientation explicit strikes me as very
> strange. not all homosexuals are alike. not all heterosexuals are
> alike. even knowing the sexual orientation of an artist provides little
> or no information about technique or philosophy or religious views. it
> is in my opinion as false as gender as a category for evaluating the
> worth of a work.
It seems to me that you are fighting against views that have not been
expressed by anyone in this discussion.
Let me give an example. It is known that a number of Brahms'
Intermezzi were written to be performed by Clara Schumann, who
at the time was quite old and afflicted with arthritis. This fact
is reflected in the music, which is quite simple from a technical
point of view, and quite profound musically and interpretatively.
The fact of Clara Schumann's arthritis has influenced Brahms'
artistic decisions. To say so does not mean that this little piece
of biographical info is "important" in the sense that one must
have it in order to meaningfully play or listen to the music;
it does not mean that one claims anything about Brahms' general
technique, philosophy or religious view; and it certainly has nothing
to do with evaluating the worth of the work.
> art is not necessarily a
> reflection of the artist. the whole notion of art as self expression is
> a modern conceit.
Almost everything one does is to some extent a reflection of oneself.
This was true in the past as much as it is true now. The extent
varies, the conscious exploration of the self-expressive element
varies, but nevertheless the element is always somewhat present,
even if undetectable.
> in the sculptural or plastic arts the artist engages in an athletic
> communion or interaction with the material. monumental sculpture if
> done by hand entails a great deal of physical energy. the artist as
> self, as sexual being is often displaced by this task.
But the creation of the monumental sculpture also involves choice
of subject, content, structure, material, placement, etc. In these
stages of the project, the artists communes with himself just as much
as he communes with external forces.
> erotic orientation and sexual preference are political categories not
> human ones.
I am not sure I understand the distinction.
> it seems somewhat rude to speak about the sexual orientation of
> donatello or michelangelo. the latter had very little time or energy
> for sex. it tells nothing about his work.
Well, I am not sure what you mean by "tells nothing about his work".
Is it the same as saying "has not had any influence on his work"?
And the fact that someone has little time or energy for sex might
_also_ influence their work, no? One doesn't actually have to
be _having_ sex for one's desires to contribute to the shaping of
one's art.
> i think it much more important to know
> that he loved other people than to know his sexual practices.
Important for what?
Robert Hahn
from Sexuality and the artist.
Melynda Reid wrote that she disagreed with the idea that art is always a
reflection of the artist, to which some of you refuted.
The latest arguement (I wish I could credit this to someone, but he/she
did not leave a name at the end of her letter) was that all art is a
reflection of the artist, even if the degree to which that reflection is
there is not present.
So now I'm thinking of Frank Stella, who lived a very interesting life,
and was one of the notables in Minimalism. To see his geometric forms
filled with hard-edged bands of color and conclude that he was someone
who was about as interesting as Kokoscha (I mention him only because we
talked about him) doesn't jibe. What Stella had done (along with many
other Minimalists) was to apply Greenburg's (sorry, I forget the first
name, but he's a critic) theory on painting, which was quite
controversial at the time (50's to 60's) in his own way.
But I suppose you'd bring up the point that the inspiration, the concept
of Stella's work is a reflection of himself; after all, no one but Stella
could ever come up with a work now attributed to Stella. To which I
reply: How is the inspiration and/or design of a piece an indicator of
who the artist is? I can't see an answer to that.
I'm sure that this hasn't been mentioned (explicitly or implicitly), but
it would seem that to examine the collection of all of an artist's pieces
would be a better reflection of who he is, but again, it's not perfect.
And perhaps it isn't even relevant.
What I believe Melynda would rather see you say (you can all shoot me if
Melynda says I'm wrong) is that art is more an indication of what an
artist can concieve of and accomplish. That, to me is very important.
Why? I'll have to think about that. I'd rather give you a reasoned
answer than toss off something off the top of my head. So if anyone is
curious, then *ask* me. Else I'd file it away for future discussion.
Robert Hahn
rwh...@watarts.uwaterloo.ca
Malgosia Askanas
Sorry for the repeat. This is an article by Melynda Reid, which
arose out of the "Homosexuality and Art" thread.
----------------------------------------------------------
Ted Park
: m...@dsd.camb.inmet.com (Malgosia Askanas) writes:
: > What the artist infuses
: > with desire is part of his/her view of the world. Do you disagree
: > with these statements?
: i disagree with the view implicit in some of the discussions here that
: art is fused with the life of the artist. art can also be regarded by
: artists as a form with formal boundaries between the self which creates
: and the art which is created. there are a number of approaches to this
: issue. artaud chose the former. i choose the latter.
Perhaps art objects are more of a reflection of the state of the artist
at the time the artwork is created. I suspect that although all things
that are done by a person will reflect their personal style to a degree
however some activities are reflected more than others. Technical
manuals do not generally reflect the personality of the writer very much
but poetry generally tells a great deal more. Of course technical
writings aren't generally considered "works of art" but this should
show that not everything that is done by a person expresses their
personality to the viewer.
: the concept that sexual orientation is important information about
: artists who did not make their orientation explicit strikes me as very
: strange. not all homosexuals are alike. not all heterosexuals are
: alike. even knowing the sexual orientation of an artist provides little
: or no information about technique or philosophy or religious views. it
: is in my opinion as false as gender as a category for evaluating the
: worth of a work. sexual orientation is at best an abbreviated
: description of a human being.
I would tend to think that sexual orientation or gender would be
important if these items were a recurrent theme in the artists' work.
If these items weren't important to the artist to express in his or
her work the issue of sexuality | sex isn't as important.
One question I have - is there
any correlation between the gender and/or sexual orientation of the
artist and formal considerations?
: melynda reid who wears hats but does not type caps
: eel: mel...@titipu.resun.com or nosc.mil!titipu.resun.com!melynda
: snail: p o box 378 greensboro, florida 32330
--
-----------------------------------------------------
Ted Park - Systems Administrator
Novatel Communications Ltd. t...@novatel.ca