Queerphobic? Is it because you are resisting subsuming discussions of issues particular to gay men into a "queer" identity.
this question is on my mind today because last night I began a book on George Platt Lynes, a mid-20th century photographer whose oeuvre including fashion photography and homoerotic imagery. His pictures of men help define a certain gay male aesthetic. And yet the book calls his work "queer". I'll continue with the book, but wonder at the authors' choice to eschew the word "gay male" and replace it with "queer"...
There is a gay male sensibility, not uniform across the diverse universe of gay men, just as there is a lesbian sensibility, each distinct from the other.... It is important that they be studied and understood so we can see what makes them unique. And also to see the common themes they address.
But, if it's subsumed into "queer", will those distinctions and that uniqueness be lost?
It is a variety of things, including my mentioning that Gay and Queer are different things. I have a large book of George Platt Lynes photographes from the 1980s, and it is Gay. There is no mention of queer. One or two of my posts point out that you can't get Gay books anymore, they are now queer books and often full of stuff of no interest of Gays.
One of the things is that Gays can't get homoerotic art or even Gay art of any type in queer or LGBTQXYZ+ venues. It is something the Gay artists have noticed and also an opportunity for me to showcase Gay artists who are actually Gay creating for Gays.
More generally, queer structured groups or the initialisms, LGBTQXYZ+ don't meet many Gay needs and also wish to suppress Gay behavior and criticize Gays, so I am developing an agenda for Gays which illustrate how basic Gay needs and wants aren't met by the LGBTQXYZ+.
Queerphobic? Is it because you are resisting subsuming discussions of issues particular to gay men into a "queer" identity.
this question is on my mind today because last night I began a book on George Platt Lynes, a mid-20th century photographer whose oeuvre including fashion photography and homoerotic imagery. His pictures of men help define a certain gay male aesthetic. And yet the book calls his work "queer". I'll continue with the book, but wonder at the authors' choice to eschew the word "gay male" and replace it with "queer"...
There is a gay male sensibility, not uniform across the diverse universe of gay men, just as there is a lesbian sensibility, each distinct from the other.... It is important that they be studied and understood so we can see what makes them unique. And also to see the common themes they address.
But, if it's subsumed into "queer", will those distinctions and that uniqueness be lost?
It is a variety of things, including my mentioning that Gay and Queer are different things. I have a large book of George Platt Lynes photographes from the 1980s, and it is Gay. There is no mention of queer. One or two of my posts point out that you can't get Gay books anymore, they are now queer books and often full of stuff of no interest of Gays.
One of the things is that Gays can't get homoerotic art or even Gay art of any type in queer or LGBTQXYZ+ venues. It is something the Gay artists have noticed and also an opportunity for me to showcase Gay artists who are actually Gay creating for Gays.
More generally, queer structured groups or the initialisms, LGBTQXYZ+ don't meet many Gay needs and also wish to suppress Gay behavior and criticize Gays, so I am developing an agenda for Gays which illustrate how basic Gay needs and wants aren't met by the LGBTQXYZ+.
Seems that if we're not on the same page, we're at least in the same chapter....
What is the title of your George Platt Lynes book? Maybe I can find a used copy online. Thanks!
They have copies on Ebay, but not that many.
Title is "George Platt Lynes Photographes 1931-1955," Twelvetree Press, 1980. Twelvetree Press did a lot of interesting art books for Gays.
Found some copies via Abebooks. Will order!