1990 INTERNATIONAL WRITERS FESTIVAL Having attended the recent press confer- ence for the third an- nual Vancouver In- ternational Writers Festival | am very excited about the upcoming events, all scheduled to take place here on Granville Island. Un- fortunately this article will not be published until after the festival is over. | am hoping that writing this will at least serve to draw your attention to the festival for next year. The festival has at- tracted numerous writers, both locally and from around the globe. It covers an array ofinterests from a seminar in “How To Get Ahead In Adver- tising” to the “First Nations Cabaret,” featuring native writ- ers, storytellers and musicians. The four days of readings and lectures (October 24- 28) should prove to be very interesting. | have chosen to re- viewthese five events for the next issue of the Planet of The Arts: WRITING PAST THE BARRIERS |, read- ings by new writers whose creative tal- ents have overcome the double challenge of learning to speak and write in English, DOUBLE ‘A’ READ- INGS, Audrey Thomas and Aritha Van Herk, two of Canada’s finest femi- nist prose writers, read from new works, A METERED RE- SPONSE, The An- nual Poetry Bash, — DUTHIE LECTURE: JUNE CALLWOOD, an activist, a journal- ist, author of over 27 books _ including Twelve Weeks in epring and Jim: A life with AIDS. | hope many ECCAD students attendsome events as they are relatively inexpen- sive, very close by, and definately perti- nent to our work as visual artists. Re- sponses tothe Writers Festival will be gladly recieved for the next issue of The Planet of The Arts. Aaron Pollard MALE BE DEPICTED? It would seem obvi- ous at first, since even Lord Kenneth Clark declared it to be “bad art and false morals” to paint any nude which does not have some erotic power, that the art- ists most naturally interested in the subject of the male nude would be het- erosexual women and homosexual men. (Indeed, as a female participantin life drawing work- shops over a number of years | can reportthatin my _ personal experi- ence it is simply more interesting and occasionally exciting to sublimate one’s lustful cravings by drawing a male model than to depict the same boring image that confronted one in the bathroom mir- ror.) And in fact, this does seemto bethe case, with one addi- tion. Edward Lucie- Smith, in his intro- duction to the_The Male Nude in 1985, states that the con- temporary revival of artistic and public interest in this sub- ject is due to three factors: “the partial lifting ofthe tacit ban on any expression of homoerotic feel- ing [by men], the rise of consciously feminist art deliber- ately inverts sexual stereotypes by ironically depicting male nudes in the same poses as the female nudes which have come to sym- bolize the exploita- tion of women by men, and the rise of the woman artist who deliberately rejects sexual stereotypes and in- vents a new lan- guage of signs to i7 express the female sensibility as ap- pliedto the depiction of the opposite sex.”(1) And he, for one, seems to ac- cept this situation quite calmly. Het- erosexual male art- ists, male artists may, of course, de- pict male nudes as well, if the subject interests them, and one would hate to have to delve into the personal sexual preferences’ of every artist who does so. It is only the strange as- sumptions of the traditional male viewer that would even suggest such a procedure. The it is when the male nude is actu- ally exhibited that all the trouble starts. One suddenly comes up against the bizarre views of the law, forinstance. A nude male paint- ing or photograph (now, in. 1987) is considered an af- front to public de- cency, especially if the genitals are shown, and if the man is shown in a state of sexual interestedness and arousal, it is an atrocity! Itis against the law of the land for such images to be displayed in any public place except inside an artgallery. Photofinishers refuse to allow their eyesto be assaulted by such a sight, and if suddenly con- fronted with one will ruthlessly destroy the image on the negative with laser scalpel of light, van- dalizing the film which has been en- trusted to theircare. The male viewer, then, sees (as the female viewer has done with traditional female nudes) an - image of himself in publicin acondition forbidden himin real life - naked and on display. He feels, perhaps, somewhat uneasy. But it is when the artist is known to have been female that he be- comes outraged. Why? To answer that we must delve into the psychology of the male viewer. It has always been assumed, appar- ently, that “since the right to look is equated with sexual dominance, the re- lationship between artist and model... includes physical intimacy as well.. Making an image is seen, then as anact of sexual posses- sion. Whenafemale artist exhibits amale nude she com- pletely disrupts the traditional fanta- sized interactions between male artist and male viewer, in which the male viewer feels thatthe artist is offering to share with him the same intimacy he enjoys. Instead, “she will seem to be flaunting her immo- rality, while inviting the viewer to join in her intimacy with the model— in our culture an obscene idea” (2). She gets more patriarchal Opprobrium than a homosexual male artist such as David Hockney does, be- cause the male viewer cannot iden- tify with her as power figure, andso is likely to identify with the mode, the passive participant, and so feels his au- thority and sexual integrity threatened. If the male viewer is an_art critic, “a common response is to reassert domi- nance through a scathing attack on the female artist’(3). The reason this syndrome is little known is that, up to the last twenty years, no female artists except Suzanne Valadon and Alice Neel had in fact exhibited such nudes. From this fact arose the other problem related to the female viewer: while there are plenty of male erotic nudes in art history texts, there is no familiar tradi- tion of such images created specifically for the female viewer. There has not even been, until recently, a body of knowledge recog- nizing the existence of female sexuality as apotentinitiating force, with which to legitimize in the public view the building of such a tradition. This leaves the problem of authen- ticity of response felt by some female viewers. One as- pect of this is the training of women i owe + UG homoeroticism by their lifelong expo- sure as viewers to the endless diet of female nudes in art and advertising, and the general mes- sage of the culture that is what erotic. A result of this is the difficulty recently reported by both male and female viewers — in finding A n y hypermasculine body sensually at- tractive. Kent has written extensively about this problem, and agrees with Coward that while well-defined mas- culine musculature, especially if ren- dered hairlessly smooth and gleam- ing with a sheen of oil, is appealing, the Hercules type in general is not. The image of a male whose _ physical presence demon- strates the power and perhaps incli- nation to dominate an unwilling victim does not have much attractiveness for contemporary women, except possibly for those going through a particularly maso- chistic phase. Like the traditional bour- geois male viewer, Kent ends by pre- ferring a sex-object that is present as unconscious or asleep, to allow the voyeuristic gaze to travel at leisure, as it does so luxuri- ously in the life drawing class, over the body thus gen- erously displayed as available and not likely to take offence at being viewed. Even so, she wor- ries about its wak- ing up. To be able, as Morse Peckham puts it, to explore all the possibilites, one needs nowadays an image of aman who not only is in good shape physically, but also gives evi- dence of having the imagination and in- telligence to be de- sirable as a partner in an intimate hu- man relationship. But there is room, surely, for a wide variety of individual preference among viewers. oe Be ee Halstead Planet of the Arts Volume Six, Issue One 1990 INTERNATIONAL WRITERS. FESTIVAL Having attended the recent press confer- ence for the third an- nual Vancouver In- ternational Writers Festival | am very excited about the upcoming events, all scheduled to take place here on Granville Island. Un- fortunately this article will not be published until after the festival is over. | am hoping that writing this will at least serve to draw your attention to the festival for next year. The festival has at- tracted numerous writers, both locally and from around the globe. It covers an array ofinterestsfrom aseminarin “How To Get Ahead In Adver- tising” to the “First Nations Cabaret,” featuring native writ ets, storytellers and musicians. The four days of readings and lectures (October 24- 28) should prove to be very interesting. I have chosen to re- viewthese five events for the next issue of the Planetof The Arts: WRITING PAST THE BARRIERS |, read- ings by new writers whose creative tal- ents have overcome the double challenge of leaning to speak and write in English, DOUBLE ‘A’ READ- INGS, Audrey Thomas and Aritha Van Herk, two of Canada’s finest femi- nist prose writers, read from new works, A METERED RE- SPONSE, The An- nual Poetry Bash, DUTHIE LECTURE: JUNE CALLWOOD, an activist, a journal- ist, author of over 27 books — including Twelve Weeks in ‘Spring and Jim: A life with AIDS. ‘hope many ECCAD students attendsome events as they are relatively inexpen- sive, very close by, and definately perti- nent to our work as visual artists. Re- ‘sponses tothe Writers Festival will be gladly recieved for the next issue of The Planet of The Arts. ‘Aaron Pollard MALE BE DEPICTED? It would seem obvi- ous at first, since even Lord Kenneth Clark declared it to be “badartandfalse morals’ to paint any nude which does not have some erotic power, that the art- {sts most naturally interested in the subject of the male nude would be het- erosexual women and homosexual men. (Indeed, as a female participantin life drawing work- shops over a number of years | can reportthatin my personal experi- ence it is simply more interesting and occasionally excitingto sublimate one’s lustful cravings by drawing a male model than to depict the same boring image that confronted one in the bathroom mir- ror.) Andin act, this, does seemtobe the case, with one addi- tion. Edward Lucie- Smith, in his intro- duction to the The in 1985, states that the con- temporary revival of artistic and_public interest in this sub- ject is due to three factors: “the partial lifting of the tacitban on any expression of homoerotic feel- ingfby men], the rise of consciously feminist art deliber- ately inverts sexual stereotypes by ironically depicting male nudes in the same poses as the female nudeswhich have come to sym- bolize the exploita- tion of women by men, and the rise of the woman artist who deliberately rejects sexual stereotypes and in- vents a new lan- guage of signs to jg express the female Sensibility as ap- pliedtothe depiction of the opposite sex."(1) And he, for one, seems to ac- cept this situation quite calmly. Het- erosexual male art- ists, male artists may, of course, de- pict male nudes as well, if the subject interests them, and one would hate to have to delve into the personal sexual preferences of every artist who does so. It is only the strange as- sumptions of the traditional male viewer that would even suggest such a procedure. The it is when the male nude is actu- ally exhibitedthatall the trouble starts. One — suddenly comes up against the bizarre views of the law, forinstance: ‘A nude male paint- ing or photograph (now, in. 1987) is considered an af- front to public de- cency, especially if the genitals are shown, and if the man is shown in a state of sexual interestedness and arousal, it is an atrocity! Itis against the law of the land for such images to be displayedin any public place except inside anartgallery. Photofinishers refuse to allow their eyesto beassaulted by such aight, and if suddenly con- fronted with one will ruthlessly destroy the image on the negative with laser scalpeloflight, van- dalizing the’ film which has been en- trustedto theircare. The male viewer, then, sees (as the female viewer has done with traditional female nudes) an image of himself in publicin acondition forbiddenhimin real life - naked and on display. He feels, perhaps, somewhat uneasy. But it is when the artist is knownto have been female that he be- comes outraged. Why? To answer that we must delve into the psychology of the male viewer. It has always been assumed, appar- ently, that “sincethe right to look is equated with sexual dominance, the re lationship between artist and model includes physical intimacy as well. Making an image is seen, then as anact of sexual posses- sion. Whenatemale artist exhibitsamale nude she com- pletely disrupts the traditional fanta- sized interactions between male artist and male viewer, in which the male viewer feelsthatthe artist is offering to share with him the same intimacy he enjoys. Instead, “she will seem to be flaunting her immo- rality, while inviting the viewer to join in her intimacy with the model— in our culture an obscene idea’ (2). She gets more patriarchal ‘opprobrium than a homosexual male artist such as David Hockney does, be- cause the male viewer cannot iden- tify with her as power figure, andso is likely to identify with the mode, the passive participant, and so feels his au: thority and sexual integrity threatened. lithe male vieweris an_art critic, “a ‘common response is to reassert domi- nance through a scathing attack on the female artist"(3). The reason this syndrome is little known is that, up to the last twenty years, no female artists except Suzanne Valadon and Alice Neel had in fact exhibited such nudes. Fromthis fact arose the other problem relatedto the female viewer: while there are plenty of male erotic nudes in art history texts, there is no familiar tradi- tion of such images created specifically for the female viewer. There has not even been, until recently, a body of knowledge recog- nizingthe existence of female sexuality asapotentinitiating force, with which to legitimize in the public view the building of such a tradition. This leaves the problem of authen- ticity of response felt by some female viewers, One as- pect of this is the Planet of the Aris Volume Six, Issue One training of women t Deer? a homoeroticism by their lifelong expo- sure as viewers to the endless diet of female nudes in art andadvertising,and the general mes- sage of the culture that is what erotic. Aresult of thisis the difficulty recently reported by both male and female viewers _ in finding A n y hypermasculine body sensually at- tractive. Kent has written extensively about this problem, and agrees with Coward that while well-defined mas- culine musculature, especially if ren- dered hairlessly smooth and gleam- ing with a sheen of oil, is appealing, the Hercules type in general is not. The image of a male whose physical presence demon- strates the power and perhaps incii- nation to dominate an unwilling victim doesnot have much attractiveness for contemporary women, except possibly’ for those going through a particularly maso- Chistic phase. Like the traditional bour- eois male viewer, ent ends by pre- terring a sex-object that is present as unconscious or asleep, to allow the voyeuristic gaze to travel at leisure, as it does so luxuri- ously in the life drawing class, over the body thus gen- erously displayed asavailable andnot likely totake offence at being viewed. Even so, she wor- ries about its wak- ing up. To be able, as Morse Peckham ust, to explore all the possibilites, one needsnowadaysan image of aman who not only is in good shape physically, but also gives evi- dence of having the imagination and in- teliigence to be de- sirable as a partner in an intimate hu- man relationship. But there is room, surely, for a wide variety of individual preference among viewers. Coat ol Halstead