Read on Twitter
A dear friend asked me whether I had anything to say about "Positive representation of queer relationships in art," and all I have is nervous, horrid laughter.
I am very queer. I exist. My art exists. What it "represents" really depends on who is processing it. My art is not a one-to-one with my experiences. My private life is my own, my personal life is my own, and my art is a processing of thousands of layers of personal and worldly.
I need people to understand that art and non-fiction are separate things, and often even more separate than people realize. My art is not a laundry list of my life or my desires any more than my dreams and nightmares are realistic representations of how I live.
This question was with openness and love by a friend very dear to me so of course I am approaching it with the same in response, but in a general sense, the way "representation" is talked about on here is so without nuance that it's too exhausting to engage with.
Who decides whether my existence is a "positive" one? Why would this ever be a binary? Why does this always become an arbitration, on who can exist, on who is "pure enough" to "represent?"
A lot of intra-community conflict comes from generational differences of processing and communicating information and pain and joy and Art. Many times I see people responding to queer art that depicts joy and pain simultaneously as "bad representation."
Do we need to shine ourselves squeaky clean in order to lick the boots of the powers that be, to beg them for acceptance? Do we really need to keep building these pedestals and then cheering when we inevitably knock people off their impossible balance?
In the question of who gets to speak and who gets to be seen and heard, it’s not enough to stop at the art or artists. We have to look at our larger systems. History that is taught in schools, that is approved in textbooks, is often missing huge chunks of the human experience.
We have lost so many people and so much (non-white, non-cis, non-straight) history. It has been consciously, continuously, and maliciously erased. The PEOPLE have been consciously and maliciously erased, WIPED OUT by the powers that would have us gone.
Thinking about who gets to speak, whose voices are uplifted and whose are silenced is a tricky question. There’s the pressure of larger mainstream culture and power, which of course is the white cis capitalist heteropatriarchy enforcing its violence.
There's the global question of semantics, of "ruling language" and what terms are "right" and "wrong" and the insanity of trying to enforce that on a global sphere with different languages, customs, cultures, and connotations around what it is to Be!
So we have a society that punishes some and rewards others, and has a vested interest in wiping many of us out. And then, out of pain, many times artists that do surface are often picked apart within an inch of their lives for not representing everyone’s experience one to one.
"You're missing something!" and "You're making us look bad!" and "This is hurting us!" are very common outcries BECAUSE of the violence that threatens us. Because some people are punished more than others, it becomes about "Don't let them see this, they'll punish us more!"
Because people often also come to art for different reasons, it gets additionally muddled. Some people are looking for abstraction and catharsis, some just want something that sounds or looks like them, something familiar and comforting and safe in a world that ISN'T.
And many want a mix! These are not diametrically opposed, and often times people want many of these things all at once, but since people are often both looking for and getting different things out of art, it complicates the question.
Artists make and share art for different reasons, from different places, cultures, voices, and perspectives. And for people who process that art...one piece of art will have a different take-away for every person. One person's comfort is another person's worst nightmare.
The same piece of art can evoke:
"I don't want to see this, this stresses me out."
"Finally, I can scream and get this out of my system."
"I don't get it."
"This makes me think of a traumatic experience."
"I like the colors."
"This helps me process."
"I don't want to see this, this stresses me out."
"Finally, I can scream and get this out of my system."
"I don't get it."
"This makes me think of a traumatic experience."
"I like the colors."
"This helps me process."
Because we are all currently being bombarded with 24/7 stimulus and Hell, we are guarding ourselves by necessity and monitoring our personal "border" for anything that can cause undue stress.
When art is shared in the same spheres the rest of the bombardment, people are rarely given the time to process. There is really no time for most of us to process because we are in Emergency Mode. So people look for Safety in art, even if that's not why all artists create.
So when I'm asked about "What is Good Representation?" I think less about the individual artists, and more about the systems that surround us.
In seeing who gets represented, you also have to ask, who gets to live? Who is thriving? Who is being punished?
In seeing who gets represented, you also have to ask, who gets to live? Who is thriving? Who is being punished?
It is not enough to see what stories are being told and say to the artists "You forgot something!" We have to ask ourselves, to zoom out and say “Who is allowed to tell their story? Who is silenced? Who is allowed to live and thrive?” Who gets support?
Ultimately, it comes down to politics every time. To movement, to standing up for what you believe in and taking action.
We must build a society where anybody who wants to has the luxury and the resources to thrive, to eat, sleep, to live in peace without fear, and yes, have the luxury to make art. So that every voice has the luxury of a whisper, a comfort, or a scream.
