Last edited by shahar; February 9th, 2005 at 12:34 AM.
neat stuff. I know you want to get the word out and all, but i'm wondering if this is the right place to advertise.
The picture with the 2 males nude with their child i find kind of...exterme.
Personally i think sexuality and parenthood should be seperated... though it is just art...and it's meant to turn heads.
good luck with the forum, hope someone finds interest in it.
Most people, even myself, find my own views contradictary.
I am a firm believer and sort of a supporter of gay rights. But I really don't see why gay art should be done for gay art's sake. I feel most of the pictures there are appreciation and study for the human body......while a couple have interesting symbolism. Not being so, err, explicit about sexuality or sexual preference isn't bad too.
But I guess its part of the social gestalt of current times. Still its got some interesting stuff from what's posted. Good luck with the forum.
There are 3 sides to every story. Yours, mine and THE TRUTH.
i dont have anything against gay people but why should the term "gay art" even exist when no one talks about "hetero art". there shouldnt be pictures made just for the sake that you are gay. i feel most gay and lesbian people fight for equal rights which is totally understandable but on the other hand they show it all the time just for the sake of it.
i'm not touching this thread with a 2-meter pole. but i'll say this; i don't like someone's sexual preferences shoved in my face. sexual orientation has very little to do with the art people make. don't use it as an excuse.
I have a feeling I could tell you I'm straight until I'm blue in the face and paint hundreds of pictures of men kissing women it wouldn't bother you at all.Originally Posted by Yutani
Are you kidding me?! Have you looked at this board?! Every second picture is a scantily clad woman! Face it man, you've got a double standard.Originally Posted by Yutani
Gender, sexual preference, religion, race, everything about us goes into the art we create.
Calling something gay art is the same as calling another thing fantasy art. It's just a matter of subject. There's nothing wrong with creating a place for people to gather art of a similar nature.
I'm suprised this thread hasn't errupted in a flamewar yet. Anyways..
Why labeling the art like this ? I understand the need to congregate as gay artists and/or categorise the subject depicted in the pieces, but isn't that detrimental to seclude gay & lesbian artists like this ? After all the activists work and sacrifices, why voluntarly stand asside ?
Maybe it's just a matter of name, but this is what "Gay and Lesbian Art" feels to me, as a name for a community.
2c over and out.
P.S.: I hate tags, labels, non-dits, stereotypes and preconceptions.
My own current work or atleast the work I've been proud enough to show on here has been a set of roses some would label that homosexual art because a flower is feminine.
For that reason I do not wish for art to be labeled homosexual or lesbian because who's to say what's homosexual or lesbian and even if to females or males are kissing together it could have many other meanings (metaphors, symbolism) than to be blunty gay or lesbian.
In my opinion; Art is art careless of the sexual agenda behind it.
Last edited by Chяis; February 9th, 2005 at 10:14 PM.
I am, first and foremost, a fundamentalist Christian. It is a personal belief of mine that homosexuality is, in an overarcing absolute sense, wrong. However, I keep that on the same level as affirmative action and abortion, which I also think are wrong. As such I would keep any disagreements with people on these issues on the same objective, impersonal level. In the same sense that I as a conservative can have good friends who are liberal and not worry about it, I as a straight guy can have good friends who are gay and not worry about it; it's just a disagreement. Given all of that, I would not consider anything in art to be categorically offensive. Anything can be stylistically utilized in art as a perfectly legitimate device, and Anything can be used for base and sensual purposes. Many types of, say, nudity can and are used in purely platonic, nonsexual ways to make an artistic point. Many types of nudity can and are used in sexual ways to make an artistic point. Many types of nudity can and are used as pornography with no intent of deeper artistic meaning. I would consider both heterosexual and homosexual usages of nudity and any other stylistic device to be capable of falling into any of the above categories. Note that I'm not just speaking of nudity there. There are many different devices that can be used for both legitimately artistic purposes and for lesser, more base purposes. The introduction of homosexuality into the mix should have no immediate bearing on which of these the art is evaluated to be. In truth it's such a minor aspect of composition that it shouldn't matter. Many pieces that include a gay couple could be mirrored in intent and theme by a similar piece that includes a straight couple; in many cases it's merely an expression of love. Even if homosexuality and opinions about homosexuality are major themes of a piece, that shouldn't influence an appraisal of its quality any more than if the piece advocates political views that differ from your own. I certainly do not hold my opinions about moral and political issues to be paramount to the artstic expression of another. I've often said--not here, but I have said it--that while I am Conservative and believe in Absolutes of right and wrong, Art is Nothing and believes Nothing. Art has no political affiliations, Art has no morals, and Art has no opinions. Art is a language. Art is an inanimate medium harnessed by men in order to convey who they are and their beliefs, their political affiliations, their morals and their opinions. Now why in a context of analyzing how well an artist said what he was trying to say must we constantly be instead analyzing how much we agree with what he was trying to say?Originally Posted by Yutani
That's my two cents.
i agree with what you're trying to say SJ
its sad your art will never go any further then being gay. its such a crutch. and its a very visible and lame crutch. create art but not because your gay. thats lame. cmon people will see right through that. and no this isnt a an attack on gay people, its an attack on people who try ride the crutch train. thats like me saying. i create art because im diabetic. its diabetic art. im not diabetic, but the principal is the same nonetheless.
Im a lezbian trapped inside a guys body...
Last edited by Scratch N' Brain; February 10th, 2005 at 01:32 AM.
B/D:10/6/85- Young and can never make up my mind.