Monday, March 8, 2010
Chapter 9: LGBT and Literature
Please respond to question #3 under "Questions for Discussion" on page 247. Also, you don't need to respond to this in your response, but something I'd like you to think about for our discussion on Thursday: did you study any of the writers detailed in Chapter 9 in high school or here at LSU? If so, were you told they were LGBT? Also something to think about: many instructors in English Departments teach classes called Gay and Lesbian literature or LGBT literature, etc. But remember, there wasn't a homosexual identity as we know it before the 19th century, according to Michel Foucault. Sexual acts, of course, that we would now see as homosexual sex acts, but not an "identity." If that's the case, how should we decide which works to include on a syllabus in a class like LGBT literature? To exclude? Would we only include literature written after the 19th century? When we read certain literature without knowing the sexual orientation of the writer, is there a way to "tell" if the writer is discussing homosexual issues? For example, many literary critics have determined that Herman Melville's (yes, the author of Moby Dick) character Billy Budd, from the novel of the same name, is a homosexual character. How would we decide a literary character is a homosexual character, especially if, since we're talking about early 19th century literature, overt sexual acts aren't discussed?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It seems as if LGBT and queer artists sometimes seek to engage previous queer artists is due to the fact that LGBT people find a kind of solace and comfort in the “lost tradition of classical Greek and Roman homoeroticism”; the text talks about many homosexual couples migrating overseas to European nations such as Italy in order to freely pursue lives in a “female marriage”. Later on, the text discusses how African Americans fled to Europe not only to escape unjustified persecution and prejudice battering them in the Americas, but also to seek protection as homosexuals. Many gays and lesbians view the accepting attitude of a lot of European society as a haven where they can be themselves and not have to pretend to be straight or the “ideal” heterosexual family just to appease others who aren’t affected regardless of the orientation of LGBT peoples. I think escaping to Europe not only does a lot for the artists making their way to “social freedom”, but also for the viewers/ readers because it shows them there is life outside of the closet; there are people and societies who will accept you for who you are and while leaving your home nation may be scary, just look at all those before who have done it and succeeded. Perhaps if America would open its eyes to the “tradition” of having an open-mindset which characterizes so much of European culture, we could make that progressive step toward LGBT rights in our own country. After all, if it weren’t for Europe’s nature of supporting the creative and new insights we may not have such world renowned splendors such as Van Gogh’s Starry Night, a painting enjoyed by straight and homosexual people around the world. If art can see past such a miniscule concept as orientation, why can’t society? Perhaps, people think that such bold artists as Andy Warhol, with his infamous and controversial video “Blow Job”, are trying to make a statement to force them into accepting and trusting that a certain concept is the right thing; however, I don’t think it’s an issue of right or wrong or trying to convince these narrow-minded thinkers in our society that being gay or lesbian is indeed not malicious, more as it is about opening their eyes to the fact that gays and lesbians, just like straights, can contribute significantly to every aspect of society, be it art, literature or politics, and be successful citizens in our country.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think descendants of Whitman look back at him because just as the book said about Symonds, Whitman helped "make sense of his own homoseuxality." Whitman wrote about his love for other men, just the way Symonds and other artists were feeling in their own lives. I think by caring on a "tradition" of writing about homosexual relationships, they can use it as a way to emotionally express what they are feeling. I think readers benefit from Whitman's reading by getting a better understanding of what homosexuals of the time were feeling. I know some of his reading made me understand just how hard it was to write poetry so sexually explicite in the Victorian era. I think through media, such as literature, art and theater, helps anyone who is slightly open-minded understand. I, personally, find Walt Whitman's poetry romantic and I think his works speak to any person who has romantic feelings someone, not just homosexuals.
ReplyDeleteI think it is important for some LGBT artists to expand on their predecessors because it kind of gives them an affirmation of what they are trying to say. Rather than just coming out with some kind of radical manifesto, they can look to the work of artists from years before their time, and say things knowing that a well respected artist in the past felt the same way that they do. It gives them a concrete inspiration. Their readers can gain knowledge of these past artists as well. If someone they are interested in today can relate to someone from so long ago, it might open new doors for their readers to explore this artist as well, and gain inspiration from them also. The sense of tradition is important for the LGBT community because it gives them intelligent people they can look up to and learn from. The heterosexual community has so many people in history that are respected for their contributions to society, and I think it’s good for the homosexual community to be able to say that all of these amazing writers and artists are from their walk of life and have contributed so much to art and literature today. It gives a positive and fresh look to all of the negative people about homosexuality that we have in the world. Homosexuals are not this strange species; many are brilliant, with these artists being a showcase of that talent. However, the dangers of assuming one’s work to be LGBT are obvious. Really, only the artists themselves can say for sure what they were intending when they wrote a specific poem or painted a specific picture. It is all how we interpret it now that deem it necessarily LGBT if the author never came out and said so for his or her self.
ReplyDeleteI believe it is very important for LGBT and queer artists engage previous queer artists. By doing so, you are confirming that you're not as alone in your identity. I think having someone like Whitman beginning something that opened so many doors for other queer artists is very valuable. Also, it helps other people come to term with themselves. Someone being so famous and talented, yet so obviously gay makes a lot of people respect homosexuals much more. Also, it makes straights realize how common, or "normal" homosexuality can be.
ReplyDeleteOf course, claiming past artists as queer can be very problematic. Like Ms. McCray mentioned, "gay" or "queer" wasn't even considered an identity until the 19th century. I'm sure there were many artists who engaged in sex acts with the same sex, but were still married to the opposite sex, had children, etc.
Something interesting I thought about while reading this chapter was how in high school we were never told Whitman was gay. And until I read Leaves of Grass in a college English course (a year ago!), I was completely oblivious. After that, a lot of his poetry made a lot more sense.
One of the advantages for queer artists who base their work on past queers is a sense of familiarity and of tradition; people who liked the past queer’s work will be more likely to read the newcomers work if it holds some of the main ideals. Also it can give them a sense of belonging; they can find something that they can identify their work with whom seemingly was one of them. They can feel as though someone in the past could identify with what they are trying to express with their art. The reader or viewer also takes advantage of the same things; it can help the viewer feel as though they are more of a part of a community. That there are others out there who are expressing what they lack the ability to. Invoking past queer artists can have both positive and negative effects as well. It can have society look at the fact that there have been a numerous number of famous queers throughout history, many of whom society as a whole value and appreciate their work. It can also have people assume how they know for sure that such people were queer and believe that the queer community just list historical figures as queer simply to propagate their agenda. It can also have some people demonize these figures works since the queer community identify themselves with it. A sense of tradition is important for any subgroup of people since it gives them a sense of unity. It helps them create a culture that they can identify with and allow them to feel as though they are part of something much bigger and know that they are not the only ones who are the way they are.
ReplyDeleteThe reason why I think different LGBTQ artist engage previous queer artist is because the later artist might have a feel of safety to publish their works. Whitman was known for being queer, and in doing so, opened the door for many later artists. The artists gain a sense of satisfaction and safety in publishing their work and the readers or viewers get a sense of what the LGBTQ community’s artists care most about and they get the sense of the LGBTQ community period. I would say that “conversations” among artist across time would create a sense of “tradition” because by an artist publishing their work, it can then be read by many different people, and then those people may want to form their own ideas and publish them for other people to read. In other words, a “tradition” of thoughts and words have been passed down from generation to generation. This sense of “tradition” is important to the LGBT community because it gives a sense of history that is a part of them forever. The dangers in contemporary LGBTQ artist “claiming” past artists as queer are that one, no one really knows how the past artists identified themselves, and two, many people might find it defamation of that artist.
ReplyDeleteWhitman for the LGBT community was needed. He exposed homosexuality in a time where that was taboo. He was able to inspire future artist to be like and better than him. When LGBT artist write about this they gain more acceptance in the world because it helps people understand where they are coming from. If it wasn’t for Whitman we might not have got some of the great art work that came after him. As a reader or viewer of this its helps to understand that gay people are human just like you and you should give them the same love and respect and rights that you would give anyone else. It’s understandable why most homosexual artist went to Europe to be free in their art. They were able to live freely without worry because it was viewed and appreciated as art. Like when they from their groups of gay writers. A lot of American artist fled to Europe black and white for freedom against the judgment and lack of love at home. Imagine how that might feel. And these are the same people now that America is proud to claim but they weren’t alive to get that glory and fame. The problem with calling past artist homosexuals and such is that they didn’t identify themselves as that so how can we and the didn’t have labels like we do today. Some of them might be offended to be called gay, that’s not something everyone is comfortable with. And we are interrupting their art as them being homosexual and the key is what we are interrupting. We can’t say for sure what someone meant when they wrote or said something because we are not them. It was great to see how Whitman was able to inspire gay, straight and bisexual people. That’s the beauty of art it’s for everyone.
ReplyDeleteI think that writers in general engage predecessors who wrote about similar subjects to gain inspiration and claim validity in their own works. LGBT artists can find a niche that they feel comfortable expressing themselves within and can use knowledge of those who have already experienced what the author may be feeling to further drive the messages forward. These predecessors grant modern writers the ability to have documentation to “back-up” what is being said and to prove that homosexuality is not a new feeling or a phase. Authors from 20 or 200 years ago can tell their fellow mankind that sexuality has been deeply explored and controversial to an individual’s soul since humans first gained explorative thought. There are several problems with present day LGBT members, or anyone for that matter, claiming the sexuality of a historical figure, especially a writer. That person is not here to speak for themselves, firstly, and putting words in someone’s mouth is bad enough, much less a full blown identity. Maybe the literature seems very sexual in its nature when in reality it’s a metaphor or fictional or about a fleeting feeling one experienced one moment that they never took hold of again. There are lots of snags when people start looking too deeply into a subject and hope to find something- you can always find facts to support what you want supported and simply ignore the facts that don’t fit. No artists sexuality should be assumed- neither homosexual nor heterosexual. Unless concrete proof is presented about a person’s sexual identity, it does not need to be labeled one way or another. There is a tendency to assume everyone is straight until told differently, but this should not be the case. The works of authors who have since passed should be read, dissected, and taken to heart, but it should be kept in mind that literature is a very personal expression and unless you knew the person well you cannot know what they were feeling, only what they expressed and wanted shared. These aren’t always full tales, just pieces.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Brandy. All artists tend to reference those they are inspired by. Even if you aren't an artist, everyone feels more accepted when they have a niche to fit into. This way the modern authors have a set of guidelines to fall back on. It is very dangerous to claim dead authors as LGBT. These people cannot confirm or deny such allegations. It is more dangerous, however, to attempt to claim authors and artists who are still living as they may not be LGBT, and then new artists are big liars. And no one likes a liar.
ReplyDeleteI think the descendants of Whitman chose to imitate or expand on some of the issues that he has written about because they can relate to him mainly because he is queer. This may also lead to a better understanding because they have something in common. Whitman has opened so many doors for them. He is a very talented and widely known artist by all despite his sexuality which may have inspired them to follow up on his work.
ReplyDeleteBy following the work of a previous artist they would have something to write about. They will have a topic to write about that people are obviously interested in because of Whitman’s success. From the new inspired artists, readers would get a continuation of Whitman’s work because they will either have to expand the issue or go in greater depth on the issue.
One major danger in contemporary LGBT artists “claiming” past artists as queer could be the simple fact that the past artist wasn’t queer. Sometimes you can not base someone’s sexuality on their writing because most writings are not very clear on what they are really talking about.
I believe it is important for artists to discuss the possibilities of past artists’ sexualities. Queer artists who claim past ones are also queer get to have a hero and feel much more inspired and connected with their works. Also not only is it important for artists to have queer role models who created their works of art pertaining to LGBT society, it is also very inspiring to have questionable artists doing things that queer artists aren’t considered to be able to do. Having this lets artists feel that even though they are queer it does not have to be a handicap. An example would be queer actors who are not considered to be able to play straight roles. Someone claiming Marlon Brando was queer, which there have been rumors of him participating in sexual acts with other men, can feel comforted that if he was a homosexual he was still able to successfully portray heterosexual individuals. Although many people may benefit from assigning a sexual identity to an artist whom either created queer art or was rumored to be involved in homosexual sex, doing so can also hurt that artist and their works. When an artist is proclaimed queer then homophobic members of society begin to reject their art and ban it. It also labels all of their work as queer art and therefore people may begin to lose sight of whatever the artists true intentions may be. Also the artist may have not wanted their sexual identity known because they wanted their work to just be seen as art and not homosexual art. Most artists live their lives as if it were a work of art and if their queerness wasn’t part of the picture they painted for society to see then we shouldn’t make our own additions to the painting.
ReplyDelete