09/18/2007
San Antonio Bar Accused of Homophobia for Rejecting Artist
An anti-gay art controversy has erupted in San Antonio, Texas, fueled by a MySpace campaign intended to get the word out about the rejection of a gay photographer's work by a local bar owner.
On the first Friday of every month, San Antonio bar Joe Blues hosts a guest-curated showing of a local artist, but the San Antonio Express News reports that when he saw photographs that were hanging for the show by Marc Arevalo, which featured the photographer's boyfriend dressed in Victorian garb and wearing make-up (pictured here), he ordered them taken down.
Said Arevalo: "He just said they looked too much like drag queens, and he didn't want to attract that type of clientele to the establishment. Of course, right then and there, I felt really offended."
Joe Blues owner Joey Villareal denies he's homophobic. He tells the Express News: "That's wrong. Flat wrong. A lot of my friends are gay. Sexual preference is not an issue with me. The impression you would get is that we cater specifically to guys who like guys, so I said, 'I can't have this.' I could see easily this offending people and it could cause a ruckus. First impressions are everything. You come in and you see art that suggests it caters to a different crowd, you may not come back."
Too gay for Joe Blue's? [san antonio current]
Posted 3:00 PM EST by Andy Towle in Art & Design, Marc Arevalo, News, Photography, San Antonio, Texas | 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.
If he had a lot of gay friends, maybe he'd know that "orientation" is a much better way of putting it than "preference."
I sincerely doubt that a few pictures would suddenly convince everyone that the establishment was a gay only place. Pretty thin, as excuses go.
Posted by: Desideratum | Sep 18, 2007 3:17:05 PM
FUCK 'EM! If he's that stupid, take your show and your business elsewhere...although, that's what Arrevalo said pretty much:
"So fine, he can't have our money, either."
What's really offensive about the whole thing is the previously discussed criteria for the show:
"The show was curated by artist Dayna DeHoyos, who runs Stella Haus in the Blue Star complex (although, she emphasized, the Joe Blue's agreement is separate from her gallery). DeHoyos appears in some of the photographs with Whittington, and she said, she thought they fit the criteria specified by Joe Blue's. 'My guidelines were, nothing pornographic, nothing vulgar, nothing sexual, nothing inappropriate for children,' said DeHoyos, who wasn't present when Villarreal objected to the installation. 'I felt I followed all the guidelines, and I feel badly for Marc.' But she said, it's Villarreal's establishment. 'All I could do is respect the owner's wishes.'"
And since when do children belong in any bar anyway? Those are some pretty subjective guidelines being noted. Villareal makes it sound like the installation was like having the entire season's cast of Design Star over to create some kind of gaysville wonderland.
You know, pissy people get up in arms about discrimination of this type, but what's really being missed here is...and I get the whole point of this post...is that instead of playing victim (which Arevalo is NOT doing here) people should just bury the weak-brained imbeciles of the world by just putting them out of business. I'm sure there are a vast number of other gay-friendly places that this showing will go over quite well at.
Posted by: FizziekruntNT | Sep 18, 2007 3:23:33 PM
Well, that's an easy one. No gay $$$ money either if he can't have "gay" art on his walls! Ignorant prick!
Posted by: Shabaka | Sep 18, 2007 3:29:10 PM
Says the Marketing Director of the bar: "I would not say that he doesn't want them in this bar. That unfortunately did get misrepresented. And he does feel really badly the way the words came out," she said.
And also said that there was never a signed contract and that the pictures were the wrong size.
I say they are just upset that they are spreading the word to gay people not to go to this bar. Sure, he doesn't have to allow the art there, but now it sounds like he is trying to cover his steps since the word is getting out.
Posted by: gabriel | Sep 18, 2007 3:38:35 PM
Whatever, this is a silly controversy. The bar owner has every right to accept or reject any art that is to be displayed in his bar.
Posted by: michael | Sep 18, 2007 3:49:47 PM
Michael pretty much hit it on the head. Hes running a bar not the Louvre, its totally up to him. i would say its rather petty for the artist to be causing such a fuss. I do enjoy the bandwagoners jumping on the cause though. Have you see the 'drag queen' art? Maybe you wouldnt want it up either.
Posted by: Nikk | Sep 18, 2007 4:05:46 PM
"A lot of my friends are gay."
Gee, thanks.
Posted by: Leducdor | Sep 18, 2007 4:35:40 PM
I am really surprised, the more I read this blog, how many commentators/contributors out there are so yes-I'm-gay-but-straight-but-not-really-just-in-the-closet-with-my-heterosexuality-anti-gay. Yes, you. If you want to be republican/rightist and blend with the non-sexual, why do you read this blog?
Posted by: Leducdor | Sep 18, 2007 4:47:35 PM
I am really surprised (well, not really), the more I read this blog, how many people out there are so afraid of a differing opinion that anyone who dares to disagree with them is automatically labeled "self-loathing" or "right-wing closet case" or some such thing. I'm a homo. I also happen to agree with the fact that the owner should be able to put up whatever art he chooses in his own establishment. (And, if I disagree with that choice, it's also my choice to not patronize it, sure...but that doesn't take away his rights.)
Can't we have a respectable discussion without the name-calling?
Posted by: Scott | Sep 18, 2007 5:19:27 PM
While I agree the bartender has the right to choose what artwork he wants in his bar--what kind of businessman would agree to put up art without seeing it first? It's just stupid business practice.
Posted by: db | Sep 18, 2007 5:39:23 PM
While I agree that the bar owner has every right to his opinion. He has to stand up to them in the whole community. Obviously there are plenty that disagree with him. He will have to live with that or maybe assess his and the bar clienteles obvious phobias. As well as the patrons to this blog have to live with the fact when they are called out for being hipocrites and vile self loathers. They have to account for themselves as well.
Posted by: Blake Fox | Sep 18, 2007 6:02:41 PM
i'm next on the list to put up my photos there. i had planned on going with a previously decided theme but am now racing to get finished a series of photos depicting my girlfriend dressed as a man a la victor/victoria. think Mr. Villareal will shoot me down? i say when he doesn't, the special for that week will be a nice steaming plate of crow.
Posted by: amanda | Sep 18, 2007 6:32:04 PM
Of course the owner has the right to decide what clientele to cater to and what pictures to hang, but the controversy would be quite a bit more explosive if he had said the same thing about blacks, Jews, or Latinos.
Posted by: jmg | Sep 18, 2007 8:30:52 PM
We are our own worst enemy.
Posted by: Blake Fox | Sep 18, 2007 8:42:39 PM
I am speachless.
Clearly there is nothing wrong with this photo. We're NOT talking about Mapplethorpe here.
Boycott this MF.
Posted by: Jordan | Sep 18, 2007 9:11:15 PM
The whole fem-boy photography is homophobic and panders to stereotypes. The owner has every right to decide what to exhibit in his bar for the clientele he's built over the course of the business. He knows his customers. Rejecting this "artwork" doesn't make him anti-gay.
An informal survey of gay friends about the photo shown above ranged from gross out over "pedophiliac overtones" to it being a "wannabe drag queen" to "a clown" to looking "harlequin."
That's on one photo.
Who knows what the rest look like.
It's a generic bar and not an art gallery.
I fear the "artist" played the "omg! homophobia!" card for cheap and easy publicity because his photos were not accepted.
Posted by: queendru | Sep 18, 2007 11:25:15 PM
Jordan, in the US we have "community standards" meaning what's considered appropriate is not the same in every town or city. Since this is a private establishment the owner seems to know what fits his patrons and this just wasn't it. I say get over it. It's a tempest in a teapot for people looking to get outraged and they got whipped up by this "artist."
Posted by: queendru | Sep 18, 2007 11:35:03 PM
I certainly agree that he has every right to say which art can be shown in his own business, but this man owns two bars within an arts complex that attracts a lot of the gay community here in San Antonio. His objection to the photographs took place during First Friday, a large monthly art showcase that takes place in the buildings that surround two of his bars, First Friday is a gay-friendly event that he continually profits from. The fact of the matter is that his gay clientele are a large portion of his revenue. Why the man wants to offend a large percentage of his business really baffles me. He's perfectly fine to have his opinion, but why then have two businesses in perhaps the gayest part of the city?
Posted by: Albert | Sep 19, 2007 12:31:02 AM
Hello I am Ryan Whittington, the photographers boyfriend, the model in the picture and p.r. director for his gallery. I am writing to those of you on here that have been a little mislead or have simply missed the point, especially QUEENDRU. For one, this story only gives you a small piece of the information you would have to read all the news stories to get a clearer view. Also Marc is not an out and proud gay guy, in fact most people had no idea until this happened, so he did not use the omg he's a homophobe shtick. In Fact we never called him a homophobe. This is simply about principal in how we treat one another, and while he does have every right to show what ever he wishes, he chose to say he wanted nothing that would invite a gay clientele, he also said I don't want those people in my bar. Now this bar is located in the very center of the Blue Star Arts Complex made up of nearly 50% gay people, not to mention founded, built, owned, and run by Gay people and is located in one of the most popular gay neighborhoods in the state. On any night of the week he has nearly half gay patron-ism to his bar. So why is it all right that he insult the very people paying his bills. Now this complex is also a CONTEMPORARY arts complex, showing more contemporary art at one time than any other city on the planet, since when did it become o.k. to censor art, especially in a place that has made it standard to introduce people to the unknown, and by the way maybe you should take a closer look at the picture and the others all of them are recreations of paintings of the youth of European aristocrats from the Victorian era. If He doesn't want a gay clientele than he should move out of the gayborhood, and if he does not understand art than he shouldn't show it. So QUEENDRU I suggest that you just keep your mouth shut because you too run the risk of sounding like a bigot. Wouldn't you say(QUEEN)dru!
Posted by: Ryan | Sep 20, 2007 3:58:58 PM
I personally think that the photo is not good at all.
Posted by: Mike | Jul 15, 2009 11:30:26 AM