Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food


Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

Wednesday, September 9, 2009

Just A Reminder

Posted by on Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 12:15 PM

jengravespostprints.jpg

You want to vote YES on Ref. 71.

The artist Chris Rollins, now showing at Some Space downtown, provides a helpful reminder.

 

Comments (14) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Baconcat 1
Mazel Tov, badly drawn Michael Phelps and Sumo Wrestler!
Posted by Baconcat on September 8, 2009 at 4:19 PM
2
Why do homosexual women always seem to get left out of this discussion and its various visual depictions?
Posted by Ackham on September 8, 2009 at 4:21 PM
3
I think Jen's just using the show to draw attention to R71 - the show itself doesn't seem to have any political motivation.
Posted by samiaint on September 8, 2009 at 4:32 PM
Will in Seattle 4
@2 has a point.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on September 9, 2009 at 12:21 PM
nseattlite 5
technically, it should "You want to vote APPROVE on Ref. 71."
Posted by nseattlite on September 9, 2009 at 12:28 PM
Baconcat 6
@2: Well, it seems it's taking old-school images of male heroes and juxtaposing them in t-- you know what? Nevermind. The only contextually relevant images would be Rosie The Riveter holding the hand of a Housewife.

And lesbians get plenty of airtime and much more as the days go on. For My Wife is a really important film in the GLBT rights movement. To say they aren't represented in modern art is a bit disingenuous and sounds like concern trolling to me.
Posted by Baconcat on September 9, 2009 at 12:29 PM
nseattlite 7
but apparently I have no place correcting others when my own grammar is so wretched. Correction: Technically, it should say: "You want to vote APPROVE on Ref. 71."
Posted by nseattlite on September 9, 2009 at 12:30 PM
8
@6 You've noticed, I'm sure, that opponents of homosexuality often focus on male-male images.

For whatever reason, male-male images seem to evoke a more visceral reaction in homophobes.

For what it's worth, limiting positive imagery of homosexuals to male-male depictions seems to cater to the opponents of the movement, rather than the people who make up the movement.

Call that concern trolling or whatever you like.
Posted by Ackham on September 9, 2009 at 12:50 PM
9
@6 My apologies if my point seems heavy-handed. I totally dig your style of activism and the frequent updates, inputs, and points you make regarding Ref 71 and WFST.

By "this discussion," I was referring to how this topic is handled by the gay-white-male-dominated Stranger. Not the rights movement, as a whole.
Posted by Ackham on September 9, 2009 at 1:21 PM
10
The "gay-white-male-dominated Straner"? I love it! Watching the left splinter into identy-politics dominated squabling is so entertaining! Maybe the Stranger needs affirmative action for straight black females. Oh, a don't forget non-jews; IIRC Jews are way over-represented at the Stranger.
Posted by David Wright on September 9, 2009 at 1:33 PM
11
I kinda feel bad for the old people who might get dicked over by a bunch of homophobes if this goes down. Is there anything out there that visually connects R-71 approval with the seniors who also would have domestic partnership rights affirmed by R-71?
Posted by lily on September 9, 2009 at 1:53 PM
Baconcat 12
@8: Be that as it may, it still misses the point of the artwork itself. The point is fairly clear, and very well tuned to its intended audience with enough of a plausible deniability that you could easily deflect any hijacking as taking it too seriously. The art is innocuous to a fault and painfully derivative but it goes no further than that, really.

In terms of what produces the worst reaction out of homophobes, though, who cares? I think as a movement, we've gotten to the point that we fear retribution where there likely is none. Just as the far right eagerly pushes the buttons of the left on health care, for example, the left shouldn't be too bothered with the reactions it gets when it pushes the far right's buttons. For example, Poe's Law notwithstanding, going toe to toe with Loveschild (regardless of whether she's real or not) is a good idea because it forces the rationale behind a lot of these anti-equality arguments out into the open and forces people to actually defend or show that their points are indefensible.

Similarly, imagery like man-on-man action might be a powerful psychological truncheon, but that effect wears off. Afterward, it begs the question as to why people are offended and to what limits they went to to actually be offended. Did they do it to be offended on purpose? Did they purposely hunt down this imagery? Are they finessing context to suit their purposes?

If the far right is terribly preoccupied with man-on-man, then why not give it to them? Create more safe space and private events and then basically let everyone know the lengths these people go to to actually get these images. It's the main reason gay pride parades are not the mood killer they used to be, and it's the main reason Folsom doesn't have much reach outside of the gay community and the bay area.

Wholesome images of loving female couples are everywhere, but the GLBT community and allies are just too caught up in the man-on-man themselves to actually realize this. Look at Porti DiRossi and Ellen, for example. Or the aforementioned film For My Wife.
More...
Posted by Baconcat on September 9, 2009 at 2:29 PM
Michael from Washington 13
Man-on-man has historically been the worst of two evils as far as homophobic POV is concerned. Several countries have laws where female-female sexual interaction is legal, male-male is illegal.

That's just Patriarchy for you, honestly. Even now we focus on male-male because it elicits the strongest homophobic reactions (for reasons I'm still curious about). Few are concerned about lesbians because they are, well, female. Since when have females been a threat?* Hell, the only thing better than one girl to a straight man is two girls. And then three. etc etc.

*Certainly not my own words, just speculation of other viewpoints!
Posted by Michael from Washington on September 9, 2009 at 8:10 PM
michael strangeways 14
uh, this is an individual (gay male) artist's work showing at a gallery that JG chose to illustrate her post...it's not a commissioned series for a political movement, (that I'm aware of).

And, Baconcat can kiss my big fat ass...Chris Rollins simple clean lines are great!
Posted by michael strangeways http://www.seattlegayscene.com/ on September 10, 2009 at 10:32 AM

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy