Art – Page 34 – Robert Bettmann

Art and Stereotypes: What is a Gay Character?

I contributed the following piece to Bilerico on July 12th. It’s based on an older piece, which you can see here. I like this version. It’s tighter, I think. Would love some comments if anyone reading has any on it.

A female friend turned to me a few years ago and said, “You’re a dancer! That’s so great that you’re in touch with your feminine side.” It reminded me that my profession is embedded with expectations of gender and sexuality. Dance is not masculine, feminine, straight or gay, but it seems like most people think it is. Why do we see dance as feminine, or gay?

We all live within communities. And so while you could say – for instance – that “Hispanic men like soccer,” to do so would be invoking a stereotype, not projecting a reality. In the practice of theater, stereotypes are used. When you go to create a character on stage, you need to project aspects of character from which an audience will ‘read’ the vision you are trying to create. At the same time, from what I’ve seen, many artists project the same character stereotypes that their work is seeking to dissolve.

Artists are the visionaries who create the new world (at least that’s what it says in our press packets). So while we exist within communities, we are also leaders, responsible for helping others to find a new way, a new truth, and the way away from The Guiding Light. When we pay homage too deeply to existing stereotypes, we lose our ability to express a more complex, holistic humanity.

Art – dance inclusive – has always been a home for the alternative. Artists are ‘different.’ Today as all members of society jockey for full participation, artists are unfortunately making our own acceptance more difficult by producing work that fetishizes notions of masculine, feminine, straight, and gay. The projection of character and community are complex. To the degree that we as artists prepare the audience to see the world in stereotypes, we perpetuate a society that judges us in the same way.

Are there essential character traits to being a man? Are there central character traits to being a gay man? It is fine to answer glibly that, yes, being a man means liking beer, sports, and Jessica Simpson, and that being a gay man means liking fashion, wine-coolers and Jake Gylenhall. But in reality, the fetishization of ‘gay’ characteristics, like the fetishization of ‘female’ characteristics, pigeon holes not just artists – but also audiences – into oppressive roles.

Being a dancer does not imbue one with a definable character. It doesn’t mean that you are sensitive, feminine, gay, or straight. Being gay does not give you a character either. Being a woman does not give one a certain character. Being hispanic doesn’t give you a certain character. We still live in a world where smart people (for example Lawrence Summers, recent past president of Harvard University) actually debate whether men and women have the same intellectual possibility. As long as we cling to theatrical stereotypes of masculine/feminine/gay/straight, we give validity to the limits placed on any of those groups.

As audiences, and artists, we owe it to ourselves to allow individual character to overcome community stereotyping.

Toronto City Council still can’t field a winning professional sports team

As reported on April 3rd in the Toronto Star, the Toronto City Council is increasing arts spending, noting that the arts are “essential to Toronto’s vitality.” As reported by Bruce Demara,

Councillor Karen Stintz, considered a member of city council’s small “c” conservative faction, summed up why, in her view, proposals for the culture portion of the budget were approved.

“When we talk about the National Ballet and TIFF (Toronto International Film Festival), I actually see them as investments in the local economy because they have economic spinoffs that are beneficial for the community at large,” she said.

“So I see them as completely legitimate expenses for the city and good investments.”

Mayor David Miller is pleased to see relative unanimity on the issue from an often fractious council.

“Arts funding is always money well spent. It’s a huge sector of our economy but … in a diverse city, it also helps us learn who each other is. Those are investments that become even more important where the economy’s weak.

“The arts story in the City of Toronto is an example of incredible success in using public funds wisely to help create investment (in a sector) which employs people and helps us become a vibrant, interesting city.”

You can read the entire article here. The article broke down the spending, reporting it as:

Theatres

(taxpayer cost: $3,716,500)

Sony Centre for the Performing Arts: $1,161,100

St. Lawrence Centre for the Arts: $1,495,800

Toronto Centre for the Arts: $1,059,600

Culture Services

(taxpayer cost: $15,402,000)

Community Partnership and Investment Program

($45,332,000 out of total budget)

Art Gallery of Ontario: $520,000

Canadian Opera Company: $1,266,000

National Ballet of Canada: $1,104,000

National Ballet School: $132,000

Toronto Symphony Orchestra: $1,090,000

Gardiner Museum of Ceramics: $130,700

Festival Management Committee (Caribana): $475,000

Pride Toronto: $119,000

Toronto International Film Festival: $675,000

Toronto Arts Council: $11,287,780.

Local art services organizations: $522,950.

Toronto Artscape: $258,840

Royal Winter Fair: $920,700

Several small non-city-owned museums: $79,050

Possibly in related news, the Toronto Raptors went 33-49 last year, and the Toronto Blue Jays went 86-76.

Arts In America Wrap Up Post on Ovation–

This is the last post in the initial series I did for Ovation TV.com. We’ll be doing a follow up post once a month with new interviews and investigations into Arts in America.

————————————

Read the intro blog here.

Looking at the videos from the Ivey book event has given me an appreciation for the long view. Here where I write and work from – in Washington, D.C. – we are about to celebrate an important anniversary. This fall the Washington Project for the Arts (WPA) will celebrate the 20th anniversary of the Corcoran’s decision to cancel a Robert Mapplethorpe retrospective, and the WPA’s decision to host that show. The Mapplethorpe controversy was the beginning of what came to be called “The Culture Wars,” the outcome of which included the savaging of the NEA’s individual artist granting programs.

Robert Mapplethorpe died four months before the Corcoran/Culture War began. Which is to say: he was not affected by the controversy his work generated. But artists like Mapplethorpe and Serrano grow their vision from participation in their communities. When we look back at what happened after the Mapplethorpe, and Serrano, controversies, the impact is measured not on individual artists, but on communities.

In 2000 Bill Ivey stated that the Mapplethorpe controversy was “the one that let the genie out of the bottle and demonstrated the power of images in creating political conflict around artistic work.” Despite almost 20 years distance, the Culture War mentality has not disappeared; it has infiltrated how we relate to the arts today. Public funding for artists reflects support for the individual, sometimes controversial, voices which come from diverse communities.

When the City of New York eliminated arts education in 1977, Agnes Gund stepped in and created an organization to fill the need. Just like the Washington Project for the Arts decision to host the Mapplethorpe exhibit, her actions should be lauded. But they shouldn’t be necessary. Our individual voices and choices are the last line of defense, but they should not be our only defense.

To read the rest of the post, click here.