Nerves and adrenaline
seem to have nullified most of my memories of the BA interview day. However,
what did seem to resonate was when a BA3 tour guide describing the likelihood
of future student romances. ''Basically, we're 80% girls here and most of the guys
are gay. In that case, I'd recommend looking outside the campus for any
relationships.''
At that point I was slightly taken aback to what seemed to be blatant stereotyping from the mouthpiece of an academic Institute. Surely such flippancy was single minded, if not improper? It was also apparent that there mustn't be any smoke without fire.
Could it be true that there is a ubiquitous quality in studying art that attracts more gay men and women? Certainly it is bigoted to subscribe to the idea that 'poofs just like pretty pictures’? I'm pretty sure that the Courtauld gay population doesn't similarly 'die for' a matinee performance of Wicked after a lovely day of sparkles and shopping.
In this case, I think it is necessary to consider what makes an art historian and whether these reflect the experiences that define many gay people.
An LGBT person spends a lot of their youth attracted to someone they are told their gender shouldn't. Unrequited crushes in the playground may make one ponder why they like Francis rather than Frances. What is it in the body’s chemistry and brain’s mathematics that makes an XY pair of chromosomes more appealing? An LGBT person may already have spent a lot of time pondering the taboo in beauty and gender. It is with these eyes, an LGBT person doesn't take the Odalisque or Apollo Belvedere for granted as just sexy people, but symbols; symbols of the relationship between Zeitgeist and attraction. It is in their position, an LGBT person can begin to cynicise, analyse and scrutinize the construct of desire. It is a position that has been shared by names from Leonardo to Wincklemann to Leibovitz.
A careers adviser isn't likely to tell us that Art History is the most employable degree. Coming out as an art historian frequently meets the timeless snort of derision, or being questioned whether it is a subject for 'arty people who can't paint?'
It takes a tolerant and brave individual to pursue such a condemnable degree in a tide of economic bedlam and a gale of public ignorance. Wading through a gale of public ignorance is commonplace for many LGBT people.
It may not be just an art History student that may be 'queer.' Art history is queer. It is natural that the two seem to collide and an asset to the Courtauld that they have. That includes you, Brian Sewell.
Giorgio Grande, Courtauld Student
At that point I was slightly taken aback to what seemed to be blatant stereotyping from the mouthpiece of an academic Institute. Surely such flippancy was single minded, if not improper? It was also apparent that there mustn't be any smoke without fire.
Could it be true that there is a ubiquitous quality in studying art that attracts more gay men and women? Certainly it is bigoted to subscribe to the idea that 'poofs just like pretty pictures’? I'm pretty sure that the Courtauld gay population doesn't similarly 'die for' a matinee performance of Wicked after a lovely day of sparkles and shopping.
In this case, I think it is necessary to consider what makes an art historian and whether these reflect the experiences that define many gay people.
An LGBT person spends a lot of their youth attracted to someone they are told their gender shouldn't. Unrequited crushes in the playground may make one ponder why they like Francis rather than Frances. What is it in the body’s chemistry and brain’s mathematics that makes an XY pair of chromosomes more appealing? An LGBT person may already have spent a lot of time pondering the taboo in beauty and gender. It is with these eyes, an LGBT person doesn't take the Odalisque or Apollo Belvedere for granted as just sexy people, but symbols; symbols of the relationship between Zeitgeist and attraction. It is in their position, an LGBT person can begin to cynicise, analyse and scrutinize the construct of desire. It is a position that has been shared by names from Leonardo to Wincklemann to Leibovitz.
A careers adviser isn't likely to tell us that Art History is the most employable degree. Coming out as an art historian frequently meets the timeless snort of derision, or being questioned whether it is a subject for 'arty people who can't paint?'
It takes a tolerant and brave individual to pursue such a condemnable degree in a tide of economic bedlam and a gale of public ignorance. Wading through a gale of public ignorance is commonplace for many LGBT people.
It may not be just an art History student that may be 'queer.' Art history is queer. It is natural that the two seem to collide and an asset to the Courtauld that they have. That includes you, Brian Sewell.
Giorgio Grande, Courtauld Student
Interesting. It is possible that it may have been a gay friend of hers who shared that joke with her! It's not meant to be mitigation I promise. It could have suggested to her, the straight/bi/gay lady who felt comfortable in the company of her gay/bi/etc close friends, it may have been suggested intentionally/or not intentionally to her that this would be received just as comfortably by other people in general. Some things lightly said, could air errors that are human, or the erroneousness that underlies all behavior that has happened, is happening and will happen. It is to err damn it. Maybe she is just a fool. I don't like to apologise for fools. But I equally wont shame common foolishness or pity it. I laugh at the coward who says they are good because their claws are blunt.
ReplyDeleteIf a close friend had said that to you in a way that sounded like it should be amusing at the time and you respected them, would you have taken it differently?
Maybe it's worse because she is an academic person, she said it in the presence of potential students! Whom she is not acquainted with, to make patronising, blatant stereotyping to these people, was totally irresponsible and totally disrespectful! Whatever was distracting her from her 'normal sensibility', in the presence of these young strangers she forgot that she was in the presence of people. How banal her imagination must be! Do not equate yourself with such people!
I'm not preaching, but it sounds like she is the arbiter of common errors and they must reveal the scratching post which all public people prop up against. Except LGBT people. They don't have those particular errors mostly. Only other common errors right?
By the way, what do you mean by the public?
Do you mean non-straight people?