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
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
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