01/15/2007
Michael Petry Explores Patriotism, Gays and the Military
An installation by artist Michael Petry opening in New York this week takes a conceptual look at the issues surrounding gays and the nation's military.
In "Monument to an Unknown Soldier: Portrait of an American Patriot", Petry asked a gay American veteran of the war in Iraq to provide him with a sample of his own bodily fluids (a sexual discharge), which Petry then used as the pattern for pearl embroidery sewn into the flag. Petry intends it as a commentary on the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy: "The soldier must remain unknown or face expulsion from an Army that was happy to see him serve, and possibly lose his life, yet not love nor make that love known." The flag itself flew over the U.S. Capitol on April 5, 1985.
Another work, "5star", consists of five star-shaped glass bowls meant to suggest a five-star general's decoration. The twist here is that each of the bowls takes its pattern from "the sphincter of five gay American porn stars whose films have the army as its erotic premise."
Says Petry in a press release: "In 2006 real members of the US Army were imprisoned for consensual same sex love, while soldiers who tortured and murdered Iraqi civilians were merely fined. The work opens itself to the viewer, yet remains five beautiful blossoms unaffected by any histories."
The exhibition opens January 18 and runs through February 4 at the Sundaram Tagore Gallery at 547 West 27th Street.
Sphere: Related ContentPosted 1:50 PM EST by Andy in Art & Design, Michael Petry, New York, News | Permalink
Comments
Dumb.
Posted by: mark | Jan 15, 2007 2:15:06 PM
Ummm, ok. The message is clear, but the methodology is a tad tasteless. I'd prefer to see the message loud and clear without having to resort to bodily fluids and glass bowl sphincters.
Posted by: Cory | Jan 15, 2007 2:15:34 PM
As for the flag work of Art (his name was Art, wasn't it?) "Emission Accomplished!"
Posted by: marc | Jan 15, 2007 2:16:38 PM
This is only going to get negative press. He's trying to be edgy and attract controversy (read: publicity). How this helps gay men in the military I don't know.
By what process did he "design" the bowls??
Posted by: anon | Jan 15, 2007 2:23:36 PM
Oh yeah, if you want to win the hearts and minds of conservative Americans then spooging on the flag and creating glass replica's of gay porn star's poop chutes is certainly the way to go. Who designated this as "art"??
Posted by: Wayne | Jan 15, 2007 2:27:45 PM
Can't wait to hear from Dobson and crew on this one. Just one more reason not to ask and not to tell.
I see Mike's point, but the methodology and presentation don't seem consistent.
What do 5 civilian sphincters and a cum-shot on the flag have to do with "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"? If the crime here is in using a military sphincter for anything other than shitting, perhaps the statement should have been made by crapping on the flag.
Just a thought. I'm not an artist...
Posted by: MikeinSanJose | Jan 15, 2007 2:33:55 PM
I think the body fluids and the glass bowl sphincter in themselves are intriguing, and the message against Don't Ask Don't Tell is a good one. The problem comes from mixing the two. Conceptual art that is so baldly political always appears clumsy and infantile, perhaps because its concept becomes as emotionally arresting as a bumper sticker.
Posted by: GBM | Jan 15, 2007 2:39:24 PM
It seems like he took some cues from that exposition of British artists in NY a few years ago which created a huge scandal, because "The Holy Virgin Mary" was made of elephant dung. Anyone remembers that one?
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/entertainment/july-dec99/art_10-8.html
I think the difference is the British gave you plenty to look at, and it had a bit of "humor" to it, but cum on a flag I dunno..Well maybe, it's in the eye of the beholder.
Posted by: Da | Jan 15, 2007 2:41:03 PM
So someone's spooge on a flag is now considered 'art"?
No wonder the right wingers want to take away all arts funding. Personally, I don't blame them when "artists" do dumb crap like this.
Posted by: LightningLad | Jan 15, 2007 2:56:26 PM
I don't like the idea of the flag and body fluids on it. Why do people always define gay men by some kind of a sex act?
Posted by: Patrick | Jan 15, 2007 3:03:30 PM
I believe that it is a recreation of a cum shot on the flag, and not the actual product.
All the same, I just don't get it. Senseless and too much of a stretch for my taste. Sort of like "Art work inspired by a dare during a really stoopid drinking game".
Rad
Posted by: Rad | Jan 15, 2007 3:25:40 PM
I work in one of the largest art institutions in the country. This is not considered art. Of course we all have our own tastes when it comes to art (PissChrist). However, rebelion has always been a part of avant garde art, sometimes it becomes over the top. As a ultra-liberal Democrat fag, I consider this work offensive. What is next-smearing crap all over the Washington Monument in the name of 'art'?
I say fight back harshly when accosted by homophobe bigots, but why in the name of art do something so vile? Does he want a place on the blogs? A great front window shot on a obscure SoHo gallery? Yawn I say.
I can shit on a piece of canvas and call it Cheney's face, but what does it really accomplish? The fact that he has even gotten a comment on troad is probaly all he wanted.
Posted by: Andrew | Jan 15, 2007 4:35:33 PM
He got you discussing his work; on that level it succeeds at least.
Those are embroidered pearls, not real cum. I like the flag. If you look at some of his other gallery work you'll see he's done this kind of thing with pearls before. He's not the first (gay) artist to use the flag either, Jasper Johns did some of his own in the 50s and 60s, including the famous White Flag of 1955.
Anyone making overtly political art today (even Banksy whose work I don't always like) is to be congratulated for trying. Too few artists seem to bother or care.
Posted by: John C | Jan 15, 2007 4:37:11 PM
Ughh... tacky and tasteless. Gross.
Posted by: Timothy | Jan 15, 2007 4:39:07 PM
American flags have been often been the back-drop for many paintings from Johns to Warhol. I still do not remember either one of them to pretend to cum on the flag (pearl rivets or not).
Posted by: Andrew | Jan 15, 2007 4:41:42 PM
American flags have often been the back-drop for many paintings from Johns to Warhol. I still do not remember either one of them to pretend to cum on the flag (pearl rivets or not).
Posted by: Andrew | Jan 15, 2007 4:42:37 PM
Also, one other thing-I challange Petry to tell us about ANY gay servicemen/women that have been imprisoned for 'consensual same sex love'. As bad as our Government is today, that does not happen. I believe he is a fraud looking for publicity. I urge him to come forward with his allegations.
Posted by: Andrew | Jan 15, 2007 4:53:19 PM
So, busting a nut on the flag is now considered "gallery art". I guess I must have thrown away at least an art museum worth of kleenex over the years then.
Posted by: ken | Jan 15, 2007 5:05:18 PM
If someone smeared shit on a gay rainbow flag and hung it up on a museum wall to make a political point, I wonder how many gay activists would defend it as legitimate artistic expression.
Posted by: LightningLad | Jan 15, 2007 5:44:44 PM
JOHN C you say: He got you discussing his work; on that level it succeeds at least.
I don't see how having gay men discuss his work, all but you hate the idea, is a success. Even middle America will find this offensive. While I don't see why anyone would want to go to fight a war, if gays want to they should have the right. This kind of crap will only convince those who say no to that right otherwise.
This only serves Mr. Petry.
Posted by: patrick nyc | Jan 15, 2007 5:48:31 PM
Well said, Mark. Dumb
Posted by: 207guy | Jan 15, 2007 6:12:09 PM
I'd be curious to know what reaction people would have if told arrangement of pearls on the flag were based on, say, a map of a Polynesian archipelago rather than a cum stain. In both instances the materials (flag + pearls) would stay exactly the same, all that would change would be a single piece of information and your perception of the work. Art can be glib or it can be profound; I find this glib (like much contemporary work) but interesting for that reason at least.
Posted by: John C | Jan 15, 2007 6:44:31 PM
I guess someone's been watching Six Feet Under. How terribly lacking in imagination!
Posted by: NOT FOR YOU | Jan 15, 2007 6:45:34 PM
And we wonder why gays are not allowed in the military. Crap like this is why George H.W. Bush got reelected.
Posted by: NORM | Jan 15, 2007 7:35:53 PM
"Crap like this is why George H.W. Bush got reelected."
Poor Bubba. So quickly forgotten...
Posted by: Tom | Jan 15, 2007 7:52:23 PM
Norm, please explain your comment. Why arent't gays allowed in the military? Because of lies thrown about them? Tell us please why gay rights got Bush re-elected.
Posted by: Andrew | Jan 15, 2007 7:54:35 PM
Posted by: NOT FOR YOU
That's also my problem with it, I find it lacked a bit of imagination. Usually when an artist wants to go shocking, I say fine as longs as it wows me..like when Madonna did Sex, I thought the rape and S&M images were horrid, but appreciated the fact she pulled at no stops to make her point.
With Petry's flag sacrilege even the cum stain seems pretty...underwhelming! or maybe that's the point. And the sculptures made from the soldiers anuses are harder to make out. I'm wondering: is that an ashtray? a vase? art deco? I expected something grotesque and amusing, but he's not giving me enough.
Posted by: Da | Jan 15, 2007 8:16:04 PM
Norm, George H.W. Bush was not re-elected; he served only one term. George W. Bush is currently serving his second term.
Posted by: Brendan | Jan 15, 2007 9:17:02 PM
re: John C's comment "He got you discussing his work; on that level it succeeds at least." -- is that really a qualifier of success today? with as many blogs, tv channels, radio talk shows, magazines, etc., it seems that the media's hunger for something - ANYTHING - to fill its hunger for content will just eat this today and the next thing tomorrow. whatever "controversy" it provokes is fake and premeditated. not only does it appear that the general public finds it offensive, but the supposedly empathetic audiences of gay men and art critics find it offensive, derivative and banal. so - embroidered beads or not, it's cultural impact appears to be as impotent as jacking off on the Union Jack.
Posted by: resurrect | Jan 15, 2007 9:38:19 PM
I LIKE IT!!...on many different levels.on a sexual level,expressing the feelings of the person creating the work etc
Posted by: tc | Jan 15, 2007 10:16:28 PM
concept art only breaks ground when the idea is illustrated thru smart metaphor or representation... this work is half-ass and unoriginal, and quite wimpy.
Posted by: A.J. | Jan 16, 2007 7:42:25 AM
Are you kidding me? Way to win the hearts and minds of Americans. With shitty "art" like this, it's no wonder that so many people won't take the gay world seriously. And if the idiot who made this crap knew anything about the military, he'd know that there are no five star generals any more.
Posted by: Joe | Jan 16, 2007 9:08:49 AM
I don't understand why "gay" art, or art that is meant to make a statement about gay rights or gays' place in America always seems to resort to sex in some form. There's a lot more to being gay than body parts and bodily fluids, at least in my experience. Seems like artists should understand that better than anyone, and find creative and original ways to express it without having to rely on the "shock value" of sex... but I guess not. And btw, as many have already noted, this kind of art just isnt shocking anymore. It's just kind of embarassing.
Posted by: br | Jan 16, 2007 10:20:46 AM
Utter crap. Bad, uncreative art. Who cares if its disrespectful, I at least expect art to have a voice. This is derivative and rote.
Posted by: Gregoire | Jan 16, 2007 10:37:04 AM
mmm, I think you guys are too harsh! As the saying goes, "one man's art is another man's garbage."
...that is how it goes, right? haha. Point is, I don't think this guy went out to wow a greater portion of the public. I think he's just "doing his thing." It's not like he's the latest Art Papers Magazine coverboy or anything. We all communicate in different ways about life and this is how he communicates. And I, for one, like to listen to people talk. I admit I'm not about to write home to mom and dad about this show, but that doesn't mean I don't wanna listen to what he has to say or that what he has to say, or how he says it, is worthless.
Posted by: Derrick | Jan 16, 2007 10:50:18 AM
Actually it's "One man's trash is another man's treasure". The general dissent seems to stem from the fact that this particular fellow is, if nothing else, hindering the gay equality agenda more than helping it. He's doing this by providing something so incredibly tasteless and claims it to be a political message that people start drawing standards and assumptions out of it. By taking a political stance, he begins to speak for many, many people, while the methodology remains purely his own. Through that, he confronts his own issues without addressing the issues that the people he's speaking for want addressed in the most effective manner to address them.
I mean, let's be serious here, ejaculate on the American flag as a commentary on the don't ask don't tell policy? Am I the only person who wouldn't first think "oh, that must be about the don't ask don't tell thing the military has going" if I saw ejaculate on the American flag? Maybe I was brought up funny or something, but if I ejaculated on the American flag, I'd probably run it through the wash, not stick it in an art gallery. (Yes, I realize they're pearls. How delightfully cliche and trite of him.
The pearl, it like, represents something beautiful, in like a shell, a hard, ugly shell. You can't judge like, a book, by its cover, man.
GOD I'M A FUCKING GENIUS, wheres my war veteran spooge.)
What I'm really getting at is, if you're going to get political and voice opinions for a group of people, don't do it with flag-colored sphincter bowls. Do it intelligently. Just an opinion.
Posted by: Kevin | Jan 16, 2007 11:21:16 AM
I am glad to see that patriotism is in good form, today with most of you guys! I agree that this whole debacle is repulsive and I, too, am as far a left wing Democrat as you can get. I despise the gay so-called "community" (if indeed such a thing still exists)always being defined by a sex act and/or genitalia. This shit just adds credence This is not art-- quite simply, it's defacement; not only to OUR flag but also OUR sensibilities.
Posted by: John | Jan 16, 2007 11:40:23 AM
"In 2006 real members of the US Army were imprisoned for consensual same sex love..."
The only soldiers 'imprisoned' in 2006 for consensual same sex love, were the ones who got paid to be on a website fucking each other. Sodomy in the military is still a crime. No soldier was imprisoned simply because of their homosexuality. Mr. Petry is using a ton of editorialism in his statement.
Posted by: Andrew | Jan 16, 2007 12:58:51 PM
I love it.
Posted by: david | Jan 16, 2007 6:58:33 PM
I have just finished installing the exhibition tonight and will post a response to the comments tomorrow, including links to related news information.
Michael Petry
Posted by: Michael Petry | Jan 16, 2007 7:21:21 PM
It just pisses me off that some dumbass who needs 15 minutes and some money abuses our senses with gutter trash like this. It is always amazing how one insect can damage so much grain. Just about the time we make some solid progress, along comes some self-centered, egotistical asshole to bring it all down.
Posted by: Mark | Jan 17, 2007 8:24:03 AM
I despise the gay so-called "community" always being defined by a sex act and/or genitalia.
Posted by: John
I feel the need to respond to this, and the other comments which seem to oppose the use of sexual expression by gay artists. What's wrong with sex? It's a beautiful thing! it's so much attached to strengh, sensuality and love...and it's revealing of people's intimacy. Surely there is such thing as vulgarity or lack of originality in sex, which is up for debate, but sex itself is not a bad thing.
And yes, a lot of people define us gays as our "sex act". That's the way they chose to demean us - So it makes even greater sense for gay artists to use sex as a form of expression to denounce that fact. It's fighting back. Are we supposed to hide our sexuality now? If a gay man is a sex worker, is he going to pretend he's a teacher to stop the masses from thinking we're all in the adult industry? NO! lol..I guess I'm not making complete sense, but the point is keep it *sexy* guys, that's how I like my gay men :)
Posted by: Da | Jan 17, 2007 10:43:29 AM
What the artist should do is silkscreen images of masculine, "regular" gay men - the gay men who despise community because it's gay, who certainly aren't defined at all, no sir, not one bit, by their sex lives - holding their throat on big overstuffed pillows and embroider pearls at and around their neck. We'd prop these pillows up across from the flag and 5 star installation and call it "clutch."
Arranged in front of that could be some paper bags that have been held over their face as they were hyperventilating. We could pin the comments from towleroad on each one.
And then off to the left would be a big empty room called "what you know about art, expression, sexuality, history, gender identity, patriotism, psychology and self-loathing." It would have to be a very big room.
Posted by: anon | Jan 17, 2007 12:01:57 PM
DAMN! If I would have just saved all of those cum-soaked hankies!!
Anon, you are right. It would be a very, very large room - which should make those who are not in the room wonder about their own "expression, sexuality, history, gender identity, patriotism, psychology and self loathing".
Your attempt at bitch slapping the majority of Towleroad respondents fails to amuse or entertain or enlighten.
We are gay...but we are obviously not the same gay. Because we don't care for a cum-stained flag with a set of glass assholes has no relationship to being "regular" gay men.
Posted by: Mark | Jan 17, 2007 1:44:08 PM
Mark, I wish people said they hated the cum stained flag and the glass assholes, instead of accusing the artist of setting gay rights back. It's not fair.
I don't feel ashamed when I see a gay man chose a particular way to express themselves at a given moment. I suppose that's what Anon you're refering to: the fact as a community we constantly have to wipe out certain aspects of our community to be acceptable to the majority..it's not happening.
Surely a lot of gay men are indeed "f'cked up" (depending on who you ask), but I have a great deal of empathy for them, and feel they have more to teach me than any perfected frat boy getting wasted at spring break. They're certainly not the gay men I know..
Posted by: Da | Jan 17, 2007 9:30:41 PM
I don't see what the big deal is people. You all are over reacting.
Posted by: Gabriel | Jan 21, 2007 8:44:41 PM
Recent Comments