The Importance of Sexuality
(This post is really late, but I've been out of town. And then priding. Apologies.)
Artist Robert Rauschenberg, who died on May 12, was a major American artist, known for his "combines," which fused painting and sculpture (Monogram, right). He was also gay, (though he was married to a woman at one point) and was linked romantically to artists Cy Twombly, Jasper Johns and composer John Cage. And many of his obituaries did not acknowledge his sexuality.
Tyler Green of the blog Modern Art Notes, mentioned this oversight in a post, and Jeffry Cudlin picks it up too. Green argues in the comments on Cudlin's site that "My points were about far more than the impact of the artist's life on the artist's work. They were about the artist's contributions to — and impact on — America."
But this also brings up a different question: what happens when sexuality is left out? Is sexuality as important as one's work itself? Does not mentioning it make it less important, or does it simply make the focus about the work?
When someone's work is linked to their sexuality, it seems an oversight not to mention it. But then again, I was schooled in New Criticism, where biography is rejected in favor of close-reading a text. So it seems to me that an omission of biographical information for that reason would be acceptable, but that doesn't quite seem to be the case here.
New Criticism aside, just how important is it for sexuality to be discussed in relation to someone's work? Many gay writers I've met talk about how they don't always want to reference their sexuality for fear of being labeled a "gay writer." Is the world really divided into "writers" and "gay writers"? I would never call myself a "gay writer," but I guess that's what I would be.
Should we be bothered that Rauschenberg's sexuality was omitted from his obituaries? Or does leaving it out mean that we can see him simply as an artist, as opposed to a "gay artist"?
2 comments:
If the obit is about his life, then the sexuality should be mentioned, but if the obit is about his art it isn't strictly relevant. His art and its effect in that world was the interesting thing about him (whether you dislike his work as I do or not.) I read many reviews about Birgit Nilsson and I don't recall reading anything about his personal life. She was a famous opera singer know for her Wagnerian roles. That is what made her interesting.
Newspapers tend to have an old view on publishing something about a persons sexuality. I half remember reading something about the Washington Posts policy.
BTW, Authors worry about pigeonholing in the way that actors worry about being typecast.
Interesting post. It wouldn't bother me that his sexuality was omitted from his obituary IF main stream America did not assume heterosexuality unless told otherwise. It seems that Rauschenberg's work focused on a broad spectrum of "American" ideals, so I can see the intension of fellow commentators and artists to leave out his sexuality. Hmmmm, I guess part of me is bothered that his sexuality was over-looked, and yet another part of me sees his work as more a progression of thought and feeling, than a product of a "gay artist."
Post a Comment