Is Style Biological?

[Fletch]

Here's a thought-provoking thesis. This blogger maintains that Art Deco is intrinsically a gay esthetic.

I looked over his reasoning, and I have to say, I find it a little too facile. For starters, he seems to be judging the culture of past eras by the gender constructs of today (and not all that accurately, IMO, but if you go and read the link you can decide for yourself).

It's great if people find something that speaks to them in art, design, music, etc., but it's also possible to identify with it all too literally, I think. Some of it reminds me of the old argument that only black musicians can create great jazz, which has been sort of glossed over, but never really put aside.

 

[Elaina]

It's along the same lines of being told only homosexuals can design clothing.

No, I don't think it's biological and frankly, I don't think it's even environmental. It's somehing you choose to have or not. I don't even think the so-called stylists and fashionistas know what they're on about. Have you seen some of the junk they pass off as fashion and style?

 

[Tomasso]

I’m proposing that the Art Deco movement.......... is the consummate queer art form.

Is he merely co-opting Art Deco for his group or is he saying that it was created largely by homosexuals? The latter would be inaccurate. As for the author's assertion that homosexuals were drawn to a particular urban center because of its architecture, rather than its social tolerance, is laughable.

 

[carter]

Because NYC has a building that appeals to people "wired" a certain way and that San Francisco has a bridge that appeals to those same people is a rather narrow basis for the author's thesis. One could as easily theorize that "straight" individuals are drawn to the same things and be equally correct. Any attempt to co-opt a particular style or period of architecture based on one's sexual orientation is patently ridiculous.
To assert that a certain aesthetic sensitivity can be attributed to either of the above groups exclusively is equally ludicrous.
Communities are borne of certain commonalities in many areas, of which sexual identity, faith, thought, etc. are a few. There are many communities in NYC and San Francisco as there are in all major cities. Interests such as architecture, fashion, etc. bridge these communities. They are not isolated in either their appeal or their inception.
That article is far too facile to be taken seriously.

 

[Mojito]

I thought it was quite an interesting article, and it has set me off thinking...I'd like to see it more fully developed. However, I don't think it really takes into account the broadness of the Art Deco movement - it's not all about thrusting phallic Skyscraper Deco!

It does seem to rely on gender typing and ideas of gender/sexual roles. I'd ask, is Art Nouveau inherently "feminine"? Are organic lines female, geometric shapes male? Granted, androgyny was a dominant feature of the 20s and 30s - Lempicka's females are not traditional "soft" women and Barbier's men seem rather feminine. But while a lot of the depictions of men in Deco painting and sculpture look rather homo-erotic to modern eyes, I suspect it was more a development of classical humanism's delight in the human form. Women, too, are depicted as monumental athletic figures in everything from lamps to murals - and isn't it just gender typing to declare that a depiction of a strong, lean woman is a masculine concept, be it gay or straight?

I have a lovely Chiparus sculpture sitting near me as I type, and with her rippling abs, energetic physical stance, beautifully symetically poised hands and stylised clothing, she is the essence of Deco. As a hetrosexual female, she is a figure I feel drawn to as an manifestation of my own ideal artistic expression. She also appeals to both hetro and homosexual male friends - the former because she oozes sexuality, the latter because she appeals to their aesthetic.

So...I don't know. I wouldn't call it *exclusively* a gay medium of expression - there were too many hetro men and women investing investing it with their own sexuality in art and aesthetics in architecture and design to pigeon hole it. And it had so many manifestations I'm not surprised that it expresses a gay aesthethic. To me, for example, it also relates a liberated aesthetic for women, finally allowed a more free physical expression.

Still...I can almost see where he's going with this, and it quite intrigues me. I'd like to see the idea developed more.

 

[Valhson]

Hood, Hohauser, Van Allen, Wright, Green &Green, Pflueger, Dixon…

All major Architects of the art Deco movement… seems to me that six of the above eight are reputed womanizers…

Thought I do see the authors points, I have to agree with the OP here and say that it is being defines within the view of our own modern definitions of sexuality. The stylization of the era was based on concept of modernization within the machine age. And I think the reasoning for an entire era of art being based on sexuality is a bit flawed. Sort of like saying that all the western thoughts written by the Athenians’ was based on homosexual tendencies within the philo-logical (see added note) schools of the time. So hence… all pottery, temples, construction (general) and clothing were derived from homosexual tendencies.

I would say only that there has always been a societal mix of heterosexual and homosexual individuals contributing to society. The big difference being only the open acceptability of the society to accept all as equals has changes cyclically throughout time and culture.

I am a Naval Architect/ Engineer, I design, work and build modern things, vague I know… so what does this make me? Should I how question myself? As a ‘heterosexual masculine’ should I stick to only forms of curves and circles? Heck, a outlying feature of Art Deco in buildings is the use of the straight line correct? Maybe my orientation is the true reason I am a ship designer and not a land architect I guess….

I think the authors argument is well presented but flawed, just my two cents.

EDIT: I couldn't get the board from not making a lol in the middle of the word so added the hyphen

 

[Valhson]

lol

So much for writing phil-o-logical… you get the laughing little gremlin…:eusa_doh:

 

[Ecuador Jim]

As Freud said, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

 

[Chanfan]

So much for writing phil-o-logical… you get the laughing little gremlin…:eusa_doh:

You mean philological?

I've cheated, of course - there's a check box under "additional options" that's called "Disable smilies in text" - that's what you want.

 

[Twitch]

I've seen some pretty bizarre and even worthless threads on this site but this is really stretching it.

 

[Fletch]

Are you criticizing the blogpost or the discussion?

Most of us don't buy the premise either, but that doesn't make it not worth talking about.

 

[HadleyH]

As Freud said, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

lol sorry to be so childish in this serious conversation ... but honestly, i think there's deep wisdom in Freud's words, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar! (did he really say that??)

 

[lyburnum]

Personally, I think Susan Sontag has much more valid arguments about 'camp' in contrast to 'gay aesthetic'. Her argument is that camp is not to do with homosexuality, but instead to do with the level or artifice and exaggeration present in design and the arts. I think perhaps that may be a more accurate portrayal than the term 'gay art'

Some short snippets:

"...camp art is often decorative art, emphasizing texture, sensuous surface, and style at the expense of content... All Camp objects, and persons, contain a large element of artifice...Camp is a vision of the world in terms of style - but a particular kind of style. It is the love of the exaggerated, the "off" of things-being-what-they-are-not. The best example is in Art Nouveau, the most typical and fully developed Camp style. Art Nouveau objects, typically, convert one thing into something else...A remarkable example: the Paris Metro entrances...in the shape of cast-iron orchid stalks"

You'd have to read her essay 'On Camp' to see the whole argument, but it is rather excellent. I've just written a thesis on photography, camp and politics so sorry for bigging up Sontag

 

[Twitch]

The guy who authored that stream of consciousness babble is appears to be attempting to connect things that are unconnectable except under the most obtuse circumstances.

But seriously, I'm sorry to say so, but then discussing it is just "gay" also. The guy is obviously full of crapola and prolonging his rant vicariously here just seems wacky.

Nothing personal against anyone [huh] I usually don't carp on threads I find uninteresting or banal but I simply couldn't help but laugh and mention this one.

 

[Mojito]

lol sorry to be so childish in this serious conversation ... but honestly, i think there's deep wisdom in Freud's words, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar! (did he really say that??)

Or in this case...sometimes a Chrysler Building is just a Chrysler Building!

 

[Jovan]

Here's a thought-provoking thesis. This blogger maintains that Art Deco is intrinsically a gay esthetic.

I looked over his reasoning, and I have to say, I find it a little too facile. For starters, he seems to be judging the culture of past eras by the gender constructs of today (and not all that accurately, IMO, but if you go and read the link you can decide for yourself).

It's great if people find something that speaks to them in art, design, music, etc., but it's also possible to identify with it all too literally, I think. Some of it reminds me of the old argument that only black musicians can create great jazz, which has been sort of glossed over, but never really put aside.

Exactly... I can prove that sort of thinking is B.S. by bringing those people to the public blues/jazz concert I went to tonight. A white kid who couldn't be much older than 18 had so much soul in his guitar and singing, I could have cried. The crowd went nuts after every single guitar solo.

I've never really identified certain interests to homosexuals. So many people I've met or friends I have who are straight, gay, lesbian, and transvestite are too diverse in their interests and traits for me to think that way. Not the least of which the friends my mother had as I grew up, before I even knew what being gay or straight was to begin with.

EDIT: For those interested, I just found out the kid's name is Rick Lollar, and he apparently has a boyish face! He's only a year younger than me. You can see him in action here.