Claiming a Queer Space
Following our last issue, on the theme of feminisms, we are continuing with our reflection on the question of gender and sexuality by delving into practices and theories of artists who seek to transcend the idea of a binary, patriarchal society that is heteronormative and cisnormative.
In this context, we look at practices emanating from the LGBTQQIP2SAA communities. The initialism stands for people who identify and celebrate as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, intersexual, pansexual, two-spirit (or niizh manidoowag), or asexual, and one last letter: the A for allies. It should be noted that by choosing the initialism LGBT+, we are seeking not only to simplify things but also to be open to a plurality of sexualities — and hoping to contribute to the social and artistic recognition of people who form part of and identify with these communities.
To recognize diversity within society, one must first consent to see and hear it. One must also admit that discrimination exists, and that it still generates both physical and psychological violence against marginalized people. In this issue, a number of authors look into different forms of stigmatization and social exclusion, with some drawing on notions of visibility and invisibility, the semantic nuances of which are important to understand in context. Visibility is often presumed to be intrinsic to presence and self-representation in the social space (being seen and heard), but it is also linked to the judgment and stigmatization that arise from the gaze directed at the “other.” Conversely, invisibility refers both to marginalized people — often deprived of the power of being seen and heard — and to “normalcy,” which makes it possible to pass unseen. Andrea Williamson addresses the question from this angle in her view of “‘invisibility’ (meaning ungraspability, elusiveness) as a possible recuperation of social invisibility — racism, sexism, and other forms of categorically based exclusion.” And Clinton Glenn raises a thorny question: “When can making oneself visible be politically potent and when might it lead to potential violence? ” Glenn quotes feminist author Peggy Phelan, who states, “Gaining visibility for the politically under-represented without scrutinizing the power of who is required to display what to whom is an impoverished political agenda.” Although they highlight the complexity of the social and political issues involved in LGBT+ rights, these analyses should not be interpreted as a recommendation not to rise up against different forms of oppression in heteronormative society. This thematic section certainly does not contain prescriptions for the best model for encouraging a more open society. The authors here describe existing situations, and the practices in these pages seem motivated by a desire for change. Hence, most of the artworks presented convey demands and activism, in forms ranging from the subtlest — by addressing universal subjects such as pain and mourning, or by turning to abstraction and nonrepresentation — to the open use of resistance and agit-prop. Stating that LGBT+ art is engaged art would be tantamount to creating a new form of categorization. That being said, claiming a queer space is perhaps, in the end, the connection that best brings together all of the differences.
Translated from the French by Käthe Roth