Eye of the Beholder

Can a piece of art ever exist entirely on its own, or is it always tethered to the context of its creation?

For instance, is it possible to listen to the Ring Cycle without remembering that Richard Wagner was an anti-Semitic prick whose music inspired the rise of Hitler?

Can one watch Manhattan—the story of a 42-year-old man’s love affair with a 17-year-old girl—and not be distracted and/or repulsed by the personal life of its writer, director and star, Woody Allen?

As a society, we’ve had a version of this argument many times before, trying to figure out how to separate the art from the artist, while also debating whether such a thing is even desirable in the first place.  (The answer to both:  “It depends.”)

Lately, however, this perennial question has assumed a racial dimension, compelling us to re-litigate it anew—this time with considerably higher stakes.

Here’s what happened.  Over at New York’s Whitney Museum of American Art, the curators of the institution’s 78th biennial—an exhibition of hundreds of contemporary works by dozens of artists—chose to include Open Casket, a semi-abstract painting that depicts the mutilated corpse of Emmett Till, the 14-year-old African-American boy who was tortured and lynched in Mississippi in 1955 for allegedly whistling at a white girl.  (The woman in question later admitted she made the whole thing up, but that’s another story.)

As a painting, Open Casket is arresting, with the oils so thickly layered that Till’s mangled face literally protrudes from the canvas, as if calling out to us from beyond the grave.  As a political statement, it fits comfortably into our uncomfortable era of police brutality and racial unease—a natural, even obvious, choice for any socially conscious art show in 2017.

There was just one little problem:  The creator of Open Casket is white.  Specifically, a Midwestern white woman living in Brooklyn named Dana Schutz.

Upon hearing that a Caucasian had dared to tackle Emmett Till as the subject for a painting, many patrons demanded the Whitney remove Open Casket from its walls, while condemning Schutz for attempting to profit off of black pain—a practice, they argued, that has defined—and defiled—white culture since before the founding of the republic, and should be discouraged at all costs.  The message, in effect, was that white people should stick to their own history and allow black people to deal with theirs.

In response to this brouhaha, the Whitney defended its inclusion of Schutz’s work without directly addressing the race question, while Schutz herself issued a statement that read, in part, “I don’t know what it is like to be black in America.  But I do know what it is like to be a mother.  Emmett was Mamie Till’s only son.  I thought about the possibility of painting it only after listening to interviews with her.  In her sorrow and rage she wanted her son’s death not just to be her pain but America’s pain.”

In other words:  Far from being exploitative or opportunistic, Open Casket is meant as an act of compassion and empathy toward black America from an artist who views Emmett Till’s death as a tragedy for all Americans—not just black ones.

Of course, that is merely Dana Schutz’s own interpretation of her work, and if history teaches us anything, it’s that the meaning of a given cultural artifact is never limited to what its creator might have intended at the time.  The artist Hannah Black, one of Schutz’s critics, is quite right in observing, “[I]f black people are telling her that the painting has caused unnecessary hurt, she […] must accept the truth of this.”

The real question, then, is whether offensiveness—inadvertent or not—is enough to justify removing a piece of art from public view, as Black and others have advocated in this case.

If, like me, you believe the First Amendment is more or less absolute—that all forms of honest expression are inherently useful in a free society—then the question answers itself.  Short of inciting a riot (and possibly not even then), no art museum should be compelled to censor itself so as not to hurt the feelings of its most sensitive patrons, however justified those feelings might be.  Au contraire:  If a museum isn’t offending somebody—thereby sparking a fruitful conversationit probably isn’t worth visiting in the first place.

Unfortunately, in the Age of Trump, the American left has decided the First Amendment is negotiable—that its guarantee of free speech can, and should, be suspended whenever the dignity of a vulnerable group is threatened.  That so-called “hate speech” is so inherently destructive—so wounding, so cruel—that it needn’t be protected by the Constitution at all.  As everyone knows, if there was one thing the Founding Fathers could not abide, it was controversy.

What is most disturbing about this liberal drift toward total political correctness is the creative slippery slope it has unleashed—and the abnegation of all nuance and moral perspective that goes with it—of which the Whitney kerfuffle is but the latest example.

See, it’s one thing if Open Casket had been painted by David Duke—that is, if it had been an openly racist provocation by a callous, genocidal lunatic.  But it wasn’t:  It was painted by a mildly-entitled white lady from Brooklyn who has a genuine concern for black suffering and wants more Americans to know what happened to Emmett Till.

And yet, in today’s liberal bubble factory, even that is considered too unseemly for public consumption and must be stamped out with all deliberate speed.  Here in 2017, the line of acceptable artistic practice has been moved so far downfield that an artist can only explore the meaning of life within his or her own racial, ethnic or socioeconomic group, because apparently it’s impossible and counterproductive to creatively empathize with anyone with a different background from yours.

By this standard, Kathryn Bigelow should not have directed The Hurt Locker, since, as a woman, she could not possibly appreciate the experience of being a male combat soldier in Iraq.  Nor, for that matter, should Ang Lee have tackled Brokeback Mountain, because what on Earth does a straight Taiwanese man like him know about surreptitious homosexual relationships in the remote hills of Wyoming?  Likewise, light-skinned David Simon evidently had no business creating Treme or The Wire, while Bob Dylan should’ve steered clear of Hattie Carroll and Rubin Carter as characters in two of his most politically-charged songs.

Undoubtedly there are some people who agree with all of the above, and would proscribe any non-minority from using minorities as raw material for his or her creative outlet (and vice versa).

However, if one insists on full-bore racial and ethnic purity when it comes to the arts, one must also reckon with its consequences—namely, the utter negation of most of the greatest art ever created by man (and woman).  As I hope those few recent examples illustrate, this whole theory that only the members of a particular group are qualified to tell the story of that group is a lie.  An attractive, romantic and sensible lie, to be sure—but a lie nonetheless.

The truth—for those with the nerve to face it—is that although America’s many “communities” are ultimately defined by the qualities that separate them from each other—certainly, no one would mistake the black experience for the Jewish experience, or the Chinese experience for the Puerto Rican experience—human nature itself remains remarkably consistent across all known cultural subgroups.  As such, even if an outsider to a particular sect cannot know what it is like to be of that group, the power of empathy is (or can be) strong enough to allow one to know—or at least estimate—how such a thing feels.

As a final example, consider Moonlight—the best movie of 2016, according to me and the Academy (in that order).  A coming-of-age saga told in three parts, Moonlight has been universally lauded as one of the great cinematic depictions of black life in America—and no wonder, since its director, Barry Jenkins, grew up in the same neighborhood as the film’s hero, Chiron, and is, himself, black.

Slightly less commented on—but no less noteworthy—is Moonlight’s masterful meditation on what it’s like to be gay—specifically, to be a gay, male teenager in an environment where heterosexuality and masculinity are one and the same, and where being different—i.e., soft-spoken, sensitive and unsure—can turn you into a marked man overnight, and the only way to save yourself is to pretend—for years on end—to be someone else.

Now, my own gay adolescence was nowhere near as traumatic as Chiron’s—it wasn’t traumatic at all, really—yet I found myself overwhelmed by the horrible verisimilitude of every detail of Chiron’s reckoning with his emerging self.  Here was a portrait of nascent homosexuality that felt more authentic than real life—something that cannot possibly be achieved in film unless the men on both sides of the camera have a deep and intimate understanding of the character they’re developing.

Well, guess what:  They didn’t.  For all the insights Moonlight possesses on this subject, neither Barry Jenkins, the director, nor a single one of the leading actors is gay.  While they may well have drawn from their own brushes with adversity to determine precisely who this young man is—while also receiving a major assist from the film’s (gay) screenwriter, Tarell Alvin McCraney—the finished product is essentially a bold leap of faith as to what the gay experience is actually like.

Jenkins and his actors had no reason—no right, according to some—to pull this off as flawlessly as they did, and yet they did.  How?  Could it be that the condition of being black in this country—of feeling perpetually ill at ease, guarded and slightly out of place in one’s cultural milieu—has a clear, if imprecise, parallel to the condition of being gay, such that to have a deep appreciation of one is to give you a pretty darned good idea of the other?  And, by extension, that to be one form of human being is to be empowered to understand—or attempt to understand—the point of view of another?  And that this just might be a good thing after all?


Here, There and Everywhere

From a new survey on sexuality in the United States, two conclusions can be drawn.

One:  San Francisco is still the gayest city in America.

And two:  Everywhere else is tied for second place.

OK, the latter is not precisely true.  But it’s pretty darned close, and it serves as a critical wake-up call for those who think they know how sexual orientation works and are mistaken.

It is often thought that our country’s demographics are segregated by geography—that different regions are populated by different types of people.  Sometimes this assumption is true.  However, here is an instance in which it could not be more false, and it is far past time for us to acknowledge it loud and clear.

The new study is from Gallup, which sought to measure the percentage of self-identified gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people in the 50 largest metropolitan areas in the United States.  To no one’s surprise, the region in and around San Francisco came in first, with 6.2 percent of its residents falling under the LGBT umbrella.  Portland, Ore., was second with 5.4 percent, followed by Austin, New Orleans and Seattle to round out the top five.  (My hometown of Boston was sixth.)

Meanwhile, the metro area of Birmingham, Ala., boasted the lowest proportion of publicly LGBT people, with 2.6 percent, followed by Pittsburgh, Memphis, San Jose and Raleigh, N.C.

Viewing the complete results of Gallup’s poll, one could conceivably devise any number of theories about America’s gay, bisexual and transgender population and how it is distributed from one coast to the other.

My own takeaway is as follows:  Gay people are everywhere, and in almost equal amounts.  Whereas black people are disproportionately concentrated in the Deep South, and Jews are most plentiful in New York and Southern Florida, sexual orientation does not discriminate based on geography.  A baby born today has the same probability of being gay—or straight or bisexual—no matter where in the United States he or she is born, and Gallup has just proved it.

At this point, you would be right to cast a skeptical eye on such a claim, since the numbers I have just quoted would seem to suggest the opposite.  If the Bay Area has nearly 2.5 times as many self-identified LGBT folks as Birmingham, shouldn’t we assume that sexuality is, in fact, a byproduct of one’s environment?

No, we shouldn’t, and the key is in the term “self-identified.”

You’ll note that Gallup here has made absolutely no attempt to calculate the actual number of gay people who live in different areas of the United States.  In fact, it would be nearly impossible to do this with any accuracy, since there are so many gays and lesbians who prefer to keep their sexual identity a secret—not least from poll takers, who are duty-bound to take respondents at their word.

So long as a significant proportion of the LGBT contingent remains in the closet—a group whose size, by definition, we can never know for sure—any answer to the question, “How many gay people are there?” will remain elusive.

Our best available option, then, is to take the limited information we have and engage in a bit of learned conjecture.

To wit:  Gallup informs us that, percentage-wise, the area around Portland, Ore., contains roughly twice as many openly LGBT people as Birmingham.  Now tell me something:  Knowing what we know about both places, is a closeted gay person living in Birmingham equally likely to come out as is a closeted gay person living in Portland?

(Hint:  That was mostly a rhetorical question.)

Indeed, why would any gay person in Birmingham come out if they could possibly avoid it?  The state of Alabama has certainly made the notion of living openly as a gay person as unappealing as possible.  Last month, for instance, when a federal judge ordered the state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, the Alabama Supreme Court immediately overruled that decision, rendering some probate judges so flustered that they stopped issuing marriage licenses to anybody.

That, just for starters, is the toxic atmosphere that a gay person faces in the Deep South, a region where public support for gay equality lags far behind the country as a whole—let alone a place like Portland, which, by contrast, has held its annual Pride Festival every year since 1994 and which elected an openly gay mayor in 2008.

So of course there are twice as many openly gay people in Portland as in Birmingham:  The latter gives its residents every reason in the world to remain in the closet, while the former provides an environment as safe and as welcoming as anywhere in the country.

As such, when we learn that 2.6 percent of Birmingham is openly gay, we can only wonder about the untold scores of Birminghamians who are in the closet and, for reasons of self-preservation, have no immediate plans to slip out—men and women who, had they grown up in a place like Portland, likely would have publicly embraced their true selves years ago.

Again, we have no meaningful way to ascertain precisely how many of these poor people there are, but I would be amazed if the number isn’t substantial.

My inkling is that there are just as many members of the LGBT community growing up in Dixie as there are in the Mid-Atlantic and the Pacific Coast.  That if you factored in every municipality’s down-low gays with its out-and-proud gays, the numbers would be roughly equal from one town to the next.

If you insist on more concrete evidence for this hypothesis, you need only look slightly deeper into Gallup’s own data.

Note, for instance, how No. 11 on Gallup’s list, Louisville, Ky., is 4.5 percent openly gay, while No. 43, Milwaukee, Wis., is 3.5 percent openly gay.  As it happens, the survey’s margin of error is +/- 1 percent.  That means that two-thirds of the entire sample—and, by extension, two-thirds of the country—is in a statistical tie on this metric.  And that’s before any of my fancy sociological theories come into play.

Long story short (too late?), there is no credible argument that being born in a certain place makes you more or less likely to be gay.  Period, full stop.

The reason this matters—the reason we must recognize that human sexuality knows no geographical boundaries—is that it serves to counter the idea—implicit in so much of our legislation and rhetoric—that homosexuality can somehow be contained, if not fully stamped out.

While it has been left to other, more authoritarian countries to attempt to literally eradicate would-be sexual deviants—namely, by making their bedroom activities punishable by death—American anti-gay lawmakers are similarly obsessed with the notion that gayness can be made to go away—in this case, by nudging it out of places where it isn’t welcome, such as Alabama, and into modern-day Sodoms and Gomorrahs like Boston and Seattle, which will just have to deal with the hellfire that will inevitably follow.

And this would be fine—an illustration of the wonders of federalism in a heterogeneous society—if homosexuality only existed in blue states, or if every gay person had the ability to pack up and move upon realizing who they really are.

But, alas, that’s just not how it works.

Gay people are everywhere, as are the bisexual and the transgendered.  You can try as hard as you can to push them out of places like Alabama, but they will just keep on being born.  So all you’ve really done, then, is made your state a hotbed of hostility and ignorance toward a group of people who are never going away.  People who, sooner or later, may decide that being targeted and discriminated against for the crime of existing isn’t quite as much fun as it sounds, and will seek other accommodations.

It is a fundamental law of human nature that people will allow themselves to be unjustly victimized for only so long before insisting that their basic dignity be respected.  The police department of Ferguson, Mo., learned this the hard way with respect to black people.  Is it too much to ask that the residual injustices toward gays be resolved with a little less violence and drama?

We had better hope not.  We can’t all move to San Francisco.