Tag Archives: Queers get little recognition in The Arts

Queers get little recognition in The Arts

Queers get little recognition in The Arts because they’re assumed to be straight in our heteronormative society.

Hola a todos. It just occurred to me that I’ve not written about this. I think I’ve written about everything else Queer-related to the point of exhaustion of the topic. There’s nothing left to write about that I haven’t said countless times, other than this.

Queers, who historically, have been very much in The Arts, here in 2018 still get little recognition in The Arts, outside of some Queer-related publications and Queer media. Oh there are the Gay and Lesbian Choruses and instrumental ensembles. But they’re now called Lesbian and Gay Choruses (instead of Gay and Lesbian) as these sheeple have gotten in lockstep with the ridiculous Queer revisionist history acronym “LGBT(Q).” Even though the official Gay or Queer acronym is now this insane mess: LGBTQQICAPF2K+ that I wrote about at that link. But that’s not what I’m here to talk about.

Even though historically Queers have been well-represented in The Arts, they remain mostly invisible and extremely heteronormative and perceived as straight in their public performances (outside of Queer-related venues) and the viewing public indeed thinks that most Queers are straight/breeders, because we live in an extremely heteronormative society with its 24/7 Breeder Agenda.

All the video clips (dance and otherwise) I see from The Arts are always him and her, with maybe one fleeting exception to that in one comedy-genre video I saw where one saw two guys dancing the tango together for about 2 seconds. (Didn’t want to give them too much time for the viewers to realise it was two guys dancing together!)

One of the most memorable (in a negative way), annoying and in-your-face-with-our-breeder-sexuality video segments that was shown recently was titled, “The Lover’s Awake” from A Midsummer Night’s Dream with music by Benjamin Britten. It’s interesting and ironic that they used music by a Queer boy (Benjamin Britten was gay; his partner was Peter Pears) for this breeder segment. It featured not just one but two him and her couples (the typical: him tall dominant, her short submissive, both white). They were shown fawning over each other, gazing into each other’s eyes. The same obnoxious breeder behaviour one can see in-your-face breeder couples engaged in here in the Breeder Mecca of The Castro (the former Gay Mecca) in San Francisco. If I wanted to see that scene, all I have to do is to look out my window. Please keep in mind that it wasn’t that long ago that hypocritical breeder couples were whining about gay couples making out in public and being “in our face with their gay sexuality.” It seems that it’s perfectly fine when the breeders make out in public; they just don’t like seeing any Queers making out. Hypocrites.

I see ballroom dancing where a major orchestra is accompanying a large room full of supposedly breeder dancers. They’re in Vienna where this was recorded. All the females are in white dresses and the guys are in stuffy-looking black tuxes with white shirts. Him and her. So tiresome and predicable. How many of these guys dancing with females are really Queer? How many of these females dancing with guys are Queer/lesbians? Well you never know and production doesn’t want you to know. They want the viewer to see a ballroom full of breeders because they (breeders) are the only couples in el mundo/the world in our heteronomative society. It seems that all of the videos that have been produced in The Arts field that are available to any television network are produced by breeders, and if anyone has suggested that Queer couples be included to show him and him or her and her, that suggestion has been adamantly rejected regardless of the country of production. So one won’t see two guys or two lesbians dancing together in arts videos, unless some Queer alternative production company creates their own, but don’t count on that being shown on an arts network.

All of this is especially true in heteronormative ballet with its Breeder Agenda. Ballet is all about him and her and her game-playing and her head trips with the guy she’s dancing with. She does the “come hither” ritual repeatedly with the guy that she’s routinely paired off with, and then moments later she pushes him away. So it’s “come here, go away, come here, go away, come here, go away.” That’s her head trip/game playing in ballet. She keeps doing this silly head trip routine as part of the ballet until in the end she finally accepts him (who is really a Queer boy in real life?) and then they kiss. So predictable and stale.

Opera — with its divas who mistake shrill screaming for beautiful singing with their “heavy vibrato” where one can’t even tell what pitch/note s/he’s aiming for — is no different with its extremely heteronormative story lines promoting the Breeder Agenda as well.

I’ve done some research into this and also I’ve “read between the closeted lines,” so to speak, and I’ve noticed that some Queers that are responsible for programming arts videos for television seem to be in the closet, or they publicly adhere to a “hush hush” closeted mentality. It’s sad to me that someone who does programming for an arts network will refer to his partner as “my friend” (instead of “my partner” or “my boyfriend”), or at least that’s the way he’s referred to in corporate media articles. I suspect if the guy had referred to his partner affectionately as such it would have been printed that way, no? And the article would have referred to them as a gay couple who are the programmers? But referring to one’s boyfriend or partner as “my friend” is the oldest (and coldest) of closet-case code language around and it’s most reminiscent of the 1950s and before mentality. The thinking seems to be: “If one is involved in any way, shape or form in The Arts, one must stay in the closet because otherwise one can offend the breeder audience and especially the anti-Queer, prejudiced and bigoted Classical Music Snots.” It’s always best to cater to prejudiced and bigoted breeders, isn’t it? [sarcasm intended]

I also know that the anti-Queer Classical Music Snots — those know-it-all, wannabe-musicians, arm chair critics whom I can’t stand — are the first to whine when anyone dare suggest that any of their celebrity musicians whom they worship and see as gods might be gay. This came up in my article about organist Diane Bish. With the Classical Music Snots, their knives come out at that moment and they talk about how irrelevant an artist’s sexuality is to the topic at hand, yet they don’t mind at all when someone goes on about a female artist and her husband. They’re perfectly fine with that. Their hypocrisy is duly noted. And as I’ve pointed out before, by not raising the artist’s perceived Queer sexuality one is automatically assuming that the artist is straight/a breeder — or the “correct” sexuality according to the Classical Music Snots — because that’s the way our heteronormative society operates. Queers are thought to be straight until they finally come out of the closet.

Some Queers like to go on about the progress that GTQBLs have made as we as a society race back to the 1940s under the current fascistic political climate. But I have to say from what I see in arts video clips that are selected for broadcast by supposed-Queers themselves (despite their closet-case code language), nothing has been accomplished by Queers in The Arts, at least for which we get the recognition for. Because from watching heteronormative music videos and film clips one gets the impression that the entire world is straight and we’re still back in the 1940s where the only couples are (white) him and her. And as I’ve pointed out countless times, many of the him and her couples one sees in public consists of a closeted gay guy playing the role of “the husband” and fulfilling his role expected of him by his anti-Queer, prejudice and bigoted family.

Just a quick search of YT videos, I found a plethora of videos showing Gay and Lesbian Choruses, for example. I would think that within those videos there would be some superb choral ensembles of the highest choral excellence meeting the standards of a performing arts network and that they could show them after permission is gladly given. One would expect this — if programmers really wanted to show them — from a network where presumably two Queer boys are the programmers, no? Or do they prefer to give the illusion that all the world is straight (as they too pretend to be in public?) here in 2018. Chau.—el barrio rosa