Macy’s Parade and the Drag Queens: Visual Culture for All?

Here in the USA it’s the Thanksgiving holiday.  For those not of a North American persuasion, this is the holiday to commemorate when the religiously oppressed left England in the Mayflower to head on over to America to set up home over here.  This weekend basically everyone eats themselves silly to commemorate that fact.  The funny thing is that they probably ate corn and fish, and maybe a few carrots.  We now eat all this other stuff that they would never have heard of.  Then everyone goes to sleep…..

One of the things that happens every year on thanksgiving day is a big parade in New York City.  It’s been sponsored by Macy’s, one of the countries oldest and most famous department stores, since 1924 according to Wikipedia.  Every year it is filled with colorful floats, dancers, singers, and it’s really famous for the helium filled balloons that appear.  As something that has a place in visual culture it’s certainly very important due to the fact that each year there are many different acts, singers, and floats that are chosen.  It’s a hugely visually affair and very culturally relevant.  You can check out the Wikipedia page on the parade at this link here.

Kinky_Boots_(musical_poster)So what is it doing showing up on my blog then which is about LGBTQ issues in visual culture?  Simple. Drag Queens and big leather boots.  Yep, this year, one of the featured musicals from Broadway in the parade was Kinky Boots, a musical that is about a struggling shoe factory in England.  Basically the shoe factory is saved by making shoes and boots for drag queens.  The musical is colorful, loud, camp as knickers, and involves a fashion show, lots of drag queens, ordinary people, factory workers, singing and dancing (it’s a musical after all).  It’s about people coming together to save the day, having a good time, and falling in love despite the odds.  Classic stuff…. in big heels, wigs,  and it’s all very visual.

The show has been a really big hit.  With music and lyrics by Cyndi Lauder, it swept through the Tony Awards winning a handful of awards against the odds and has done very well for itself on Broadway.  It’s based on a film from a few years ago that was quite successful and it’s relevant to a lot of people; straight, gay, black, brown, white, democrat, republican, labour, conservative, etc.  So guess what?  The parade organizers included it.  After all, if the parade is about reflecting the visual culture of our times, which a quick trip through the history pages will prove that it is, including it isn’t really that much of a shock.  Here you can see a link to he clip from the parade where it was included.

Well, surprise, surprise, it is now the centre of a row, along with the SeaWorld float which has attracted a ton of bad press too.  Drag Queens and SeaWorld; who knew that those two things together would be such a volatile mix?  An article on the website New Civil Rights Movement caught my eye first about it.  I’ll be honest, I don’t normally follow much on that site, as I don’t appreciate the standard of journalism there.  It’s not very balanced generally and participates in more than its far share of dog-whistle politics.  But what did catch my eye was the fact that it had been trawling Twitter for people posting comments about Kinky Boots being included in the parade.

Here’s the link to the article for you to check out some of the tweets.  I’ve been and checked out most of the accounts/tweets to verify them and it wasn’t a very pleasant experience either.  There is a lot hate and unhappiness out there at Kinky Boots being included.  Some are just silly too.  One that caught my eye particularly was from “LilMissRightie” with her comment that “Liberals ruin EVERYTHING”.  This seemed almost like a twitter tantrum.  I felt like I could hear her stamping her feet on the floor as she wrote it.  The tweets go on, and on, about how awful it is that people are going to have to explain to their kids what drag queens are, and that parents don’t need “their kids to see tranny in thigh high boots. Ridiculous”.  Someone even timed how much coverage Duck Dynasty got compared to Kinky Boots and was complaining about that it seems.  Maybe it was because the drag queens were better dancers?

Although I’d love to go into a debate here about the issues that these people have here (believe me, I would) I’ll stick to the point of the blog which is visual culture and politics.  Like it or not, as I have talked about before, LGBTQ issues are part of the fabric of our culture.  It also doesn’t get a lot more visual than drag queens really.  Add in something like the Macy’s parade and television and it all comes together in the perfect visual politics cocktail.  It’s an example of how much visual culture has evolved that we can firstly have this show on Broadway and secondly that it is now included in a televised parade.  Considering that that other famous New York parade is still banning LGBTQ folk from marching, this is a big deal.Kinky-Boots-Macy_s-Thanksgiving-Day-Parade-2013-YouTube

Visual Culture belongs to everyone.  It doesn’t matter if you don’t like it.  It’s culture.  Remember the last time in history when one culture tried to get rid of another one?  I don’t see a rash of drag queens complaining about Duck Dynasty being in the same parade as them, now.  Maybe that’s because they see the bigger picture.  Or maybe they just don’t have time to get their wigs in a knot about it all.  People will always complain about this sort of thing as it is form of artistic expression.  But that doesn’t make it any less rational or silly, does it?  On a personal note I’m glad to see these mediums becoming more inclusive.  As for the kids, I’ll call out one of the tweets where a parent said that her five yr old son loved it and said the biker in heels was his fav.”.  The mother used a great hash tag for her post.  It was #raisingtolerantkids.  I think that says it all really.  Visual culture for everyone!

Big love,

DMx

Advertisements

Looking for Love: Homos on the Telly.

Homos on the telly.  I ask you, whatever next.  A black man in the white house perhaps.  But wait…..

In reading one of the many blogs on LGBTQ news out there I came across the details of a new television series that is premièring on HBO, a US premium television channel, in January 2014.  In checking out the trailers that have been released, the series seems to be a contemporary look at gay male life in San Francisco. It’s called “Looking” and is focused around dating.  Now I should caution you all here; I’ve only watched the trailer and seen a couple of comments on a blog.  But two things; it looks interesting and controversial as well.  To bring you all up to speed you can check out the trailer here.

I don’t have HBO so I’m not sure if I will get to see the whole show or not.  But the premise seems straight forward from what I can tell.  Ordinary gay people, in San Francisco, on TV.  The trailer features people looking for love, going to dinner, hanging out with friends, kissing, working, doing all the usual stuff that folks do.  But on telly.  Now I am sure that there is going to be more than the normal amount of drama on the show as well, simply because it is television.  After all, who wants watch boring TV?  A lot of people are trying to escape their lives through TV, not to find out that people on the box just plod on relentlessly too.  Dull TV is not the advertisers friends.  But I digress….

What’s worthy of note here are two points.  First, this is not a comedy or a seemingly a sex show (so far).  From the trailer it seems pretty ordinary.  Let’s think about some of the other shows that are out there at the moment that represent LGBTQ people.  Modern Family is the one that immediately springs to mind.  It’s fun, yes, but represents perhaps a niche and stylized aspect of LGBTQ life with the gay couple it represents.  Yes, it deals with some topical issues for sure, but it uses some largely stereotypical devices to do so.  Because it does so it is also pretty inoffensive.  When you use safe things like Mitch and Cam, the two characters in Modern Family (who I love, by the way) to demonstrate a point, it’s very comfortable for the audience.  It hardly pushes any boundaries of acceptability to show everyone’s favorite “gay uncle” kind of image does it, even if they are dealing with some topical issues.  It’s still slapstick.  Same goes for Will and Grace if you want to go back in time.  Now before I get any hate mail from folks, I’m totally supportive of these shows.  Their role in visual culture from an LGBTQ perspective is very important.  They have created dialogues that couldn’t have existed if they hadn’t.  But that doesn’t mean that they are without issue or problems.

Queer as Folk is another show that needs discussing while we are at it too.  But I need to check myself.  This isn’t a blog about LGBTQ rights.  So it’s important to remember that my comments are about the representation of LGBTQ folks in visual culture and politics, and in this case, TV shows.  Queer as Folk is an interesting example as there was a UK version and a US version.  The UK version ran for two seasons and the US for many more.  There were also about a million more episodes in the US version too.  The UK version was very gritty, suburban, and seemed to attempt a much more realistic portrayal of life.  The US version was quite a bit more airbrushed, glamorous, and had a lot more hair gel and make up.  There was not a lot in common between them and they also dealt with very different issues as a consequence, although both reflected aspects of the culture that they were based in.  One was in a working class town, while the other was in a gay neighborhood that was, by comparison, fairly well-to-do.  Visual Culture in action…. airbrushes, hairbrushes, and all in the US version.

Now, I haven’t seen anything other than the trailer for Looking yet.  There is also the caveat that this is, according to what I have read, a show about guys who are trying to date in San Francisco, so it could very well turn into a sex show.  The trailer does show someone wandering around in a bath towel after all so we will have to see how that goes.  But dating is a fact of life for folks and it’s a large part of gay culture.  Importantly, it’s also something that doesn’t really get talked about much in a serious way in many of the shows that feature gay characters.  Will and Grace covered it from a comedy/sanitized perspective, Modern Family doesn’t cover it at all, the US version of QAF did cover it, and that’s really it to my knowledge.  When LGBTQ people get dealt with on TV they are usually either safely coupled up already or the dating is done nicely, humorously, or it just sort of happens.  There hasn’t been a show that revolves AROUND it (at least not for the guys).  That’s quite a big thing and is another milestone in reflecting an aspect of LGBTQ culture in the visual realm that I don’t think I have seen before.  Dating involves kissing, body parts, relationships, and all the things that seem to scare the general public the most about gay people at the moment.  So to see such a big part of LGBTQ culture arriving on TV is a big thing.

So what of the second aspect that I mentioned?  It all seems very white according to the trailer.  I don’t think I really saw anyone who is non-white in a lead role.  That’s also something that a lot of people seem to be discussing online too.  If this show is about representing culture visually, then it should surely be representing all aspects of a culture.  Judging by the trailer they have so far failed and there are a lot of pissed off Asians, Blacks, and Latinos out there already.  That’s not a good start.  That’s the thing with a visual medium like the telly; when you miss things out, it’s really noticeable in a lot of ways.

So, will you watch it?  I’d love to but I don’t have HBO and chances are won’t subscribe to it just for this.  Maybe one of you can tell me what it is all about.  Otherwise I’ll have to wait for it to arrive on Netflix in about 10 years…..

Big love,

DMx

Transgender fightclub: Video gaming and Trans characters.

Today I saw an interesting article on characters in video games on out.com, (link here) a website that deals with LGBTQ entertainment issues.  I’m not

Leo

Leo

really much of a video game person to be honest though.  Yes, I have an XBOX 360 but we use it mainly as a media extender and for all of the applications it supports.  Game wise about the only time it gets pressed into service is when we have friends round, we have a few drinks, and someone thinks that it is a good idea to break out Dance Central and we all bust some moves with Kinect.  well, it’s all fun and games until someone dislocates a hip-joint anyway.

But I digress (as usual)….what REALLY caught my eye about this article was that it was about transgender friendly characters in video games.  I’ve never thought about that before at all.  Maybe it’s because I don’t have enough exposure to video games that it hadn’t occurred to me or maybe it’s because trans people are always treated as invisible by society.  But the article listed 7 characters in video games that were considered to be “trans friendly”.

untitled (2)

Poison

Now, in the whole history of the world, 7 is not really a large number at all.  But considering how there are virtually no trans people visible on telly, it’s certainly more than I would have thought.  Chas Bono was the last time I saw a trans person on prime time TV in anything substantial and Dancing With The Stars, while one of my favorite shows, is hardly a show that is going to educate people about the weightier side of  transgender issues.

Video games seemed such an unlikely place for trans characters to be hanging out.  I was also quite surprised at the write ups that were given about each character as well. Poison, from the Capcom series Final Fight, was revealed to be officially a post-op transsexual by the games producers and Leo, from Tekken 6 by Bandai-Namco, was deliberately created to be gender ambiguous, though was later revealed to be female.  Others, such as Guillo, from Baten Kaitos Origins, were created as gender neutral characters with attributes of both men and women.  It’s clear that the game makers were intent on introducing (at the least controversial end of the spectrum) non-normative gender characters, and (at the other end of the spectrum) trans friendly characters into their games.

But why video games?  Why not into print media, films, or TV shows?  Perhaps they had an eye to the

Guillo

Guillo

fact that gamers are often marginalized themselves and therefore may relate to these characters.  It’s certainly possible that people who may operate on the fringes of society would be more willing to accept others that society places into the same positions as themselves.  It also suggests that trans people, for some reason, may have an easier time breaking into society through a visual medium than through real life.  The reasons for that may be far more complicated than this blog can deal with.  Could it be that the medium of gaming also allows people to deal with the issues in a controlled, detached way?  Visually I also found it interesting to see how

these characters were portrayed.  they are all heavily styled, and there are significant visual links between them.  7 is hardly enough to be able to make a significant analysis on though.  But it would be interesting to assemble a greater collection to see if the representation of either transgender people or “trans friendly characters” (whatever that really means) presents any unifying information.

untitled (3)

Flea

Still, what ties all this to my blog is that it is yet another example of LGBTQ issues in visual culture.  There is no denying the role that video games play in visual culture today when games break out of the console into movies, books, and even soundtracks.  The crossover between media genres ensures that what is relevant in one area has impact in another, so we can be sure that the use of transgender identities in the visually driven gaming world is having an impact in other areas of visual culture too.

I wonder what I’ll come across next?  It’s always something different, that’s for sure!

Big love,

DMx

“Boys Beware”: How to spot a homo – Visual Propaganda in the 1960s

The other day I saw a video called “Boys Beware” in a class.  No, this isn’t some film warning the happy homo about the perils of too much lip gloss, or alerting you to the dangers of one too many nights down the disco, but a rather nasty movie from 1961 about male homosexuals and how evil they are.  I post about it here because it’s an interesting visual piece that still seems uncomfortably topical as well.  Its an interesting foray into the sorts of propaganda movies that were being peddled by governments of the time about all sorts of “social evils”, but it’s of particular relevance to this blog with its bent towards LGBTQ issues.  Also, with all the rhetoric about homosexuality in the news it does seems that these kind of things are always relevant.  Here’s the movie.  Grab a glass of wine and prepared to be horrified.

So what are some of the issues then with a movie like this?  Well, there are clearly many and probably too many to list here but how about we start with the whole issue of presenting homosexuality as some sort of sickness and the fact that the movie states this in a pejorative way.  Ralph, our first offender, suffers from this sickness, we are told.  Yes, I’m aware that homosexuality was declassified (if that’s an appropriate term) as a mental illness in around 1973, but this movie puts it across in a such a specific and dangerous way here.  If you have watched the  film you’ll remember Ralph and know what I mean.  He’s portrayed as the creepy dude with the receding hair and the porn ‘stache, who told off colour jokes and showed the kid porno playing cards.  Get my drift?  This movie sets up the negative stereotypes right from the get go.  Ralph has a sickness of the mind, you see.  A sickness that makes him “demand” intimate relationship with members of their own sex.  Don’t you just love the use of the word demand in this context?

Once the police get wind of all this and Ralph is (presumably) sent off to the slammer, Jimmy gets probation.  Why Jimmy gets punished isn’t clear in the video.  Maybe as some sort of terror tactic I guess.  But no matter.  Next up is MURDER in our little cautionary tale.  Murder by a homo in a bow tie no less.  The bow tie crops up a couple of times and is clearly some sort of signifier, obviously an easy way to spot your local queer if you are in the know.  We see it in the next scene when a homosexual lures a newspaper boy into his car.  Off he goes, saved only by a quick witted friend and a lady who is watering her garden in an outstanding outfit and glorious heels.

And so it goes on.  We get the warnings about strangers, which I don’t think anyone would disagree with, but it’s quickly followed up with a comment about how you never know when the “homosexual may be about, and that he may appear normal”. This is finally finished up with another quick jab about mental illness.  Because their aren’t any crazy straight people out there, are there?  Yes, there have clearly been awful cases of nut job homosexuals kidnapping and killing kids.  But there have been plenty of straight people doing that too, but the police weren’t making hatchet job propaganda movies like these about Auntie Ethel nabbing kids from the park.

It’s of course easy to poke holes in a movie like this.  Propaganda movies are pieces of their time and one would hope that the world might just be a little more enlightened now.  A quick look at the comments on the YouTube page that this is pulled from though suggests that this may not be that case, and that visual propaganda like this is having the same effect as before.  That’s a little worrying to say the least.  The message of taking care of kids is always a good one of course, but there is a huge difference between sexual predators, pedophilia, and homosexuality a difference that this film intentionally and misleadingly chooses to, at best, blur or, at worst, conceal.  That’s one of the many reasons why movies like this were, and still are, so problematic.  It also goes to show why these movies were so successful in their day.

These so called “educational movies” are designed to deliver short, concise, and to the point messages.  Despite my feelings about content and the icky messaging, one can’t argue with the fact that it does its job well, however unsavoury the concept and execution may be.  It’s certainly effective and no doubt scared the shit out of lots of kids who were made to watch it.  It probably also created a whole new breed of homophobes and, most likely, sadly caused the victimization of many gay men as well.  But clearly the people who made this piece didn’t care about that at all.

So, dear reader, I turn this one over to you.  Have something to say about this?  If so, then feel free to sound off in the comments section below.

Big love,

DMx

Letter Bomb: Visual politics in the mail.

Since I started this blog back up again with a new direction it’s got me thinking a lot about images, culture, and politics.  I obviously think a lot about that stuff anyway in my own fine art photography practice which tends to focus on those things, but I had never really examined it in great detail in outside of that.  I’m finding all sorts of ways that the image becomes a political tool or object, either deliberately or accidentally.  It’s also interesting the subtle ways that images are present in our culture too.

This post is one that looks at how an image is going to potentially cause a political upset.  Does David have a crystal ball, I hear you ask?  No, dear reader, he does not.  He just knows that people have a tendency to get a little upset when certain things collide.  Some of those things are sexuality, the government, the public, and pictures.  How are these things going to collide this time?  Through something that millions of people are going to see, that millions of people are going to receive (whether they want it or not), and through untitled (2)something over which they have absolutely no control over whatsoever.  This is a thing that will be used as a tool to wind people up, to debate the use of public funds, and that will please some people and drive others totally up the pole.  What is it, I hear you cry?

It’s a postage stamp.  Due to be released in 2014 by the United States Postal Service, it will feature Harvey Milk, probably the most famous gay rights campaigner in US history and the first openly gay politician to be elected in the US (I think).  Yesterday the USPS announced that the stamp will be released next year.  They didn’t give a date but it was confirmed in a posting via the Harvey Milk Foundation.  I should stress that the image here is NOT the actual stamp; this is just a mockup from a blog.  Hopefully he won’t look like a cheesy country-western singer as in this example…..

Here we have almost the ultimate combination of visual culture and politics for this blog.  We have the image of Harvey.  That’s bound to create some discussion to start with.  Visually what will they use?  Will it be a drawing, a photograph, a painting?  People can never agree on these things anyway and I am sure that this will no different.  Culturally he is important to LGBTQ people everywhere as he is someone who people look to as relevant in their history, whether they agree with him politically or not.  He was the first gay elected official in California, regardless of political position so he instantly becomes a cultural symbol for many.  Politically this has the potential to become a (heated) discussion point as we have an independent agency of the United States government producing a stamp of a figure that represents a very current and controversial political and social battle taking place.  Three points that are hugely relevant to this blog coming together.

The practical aspects of this are interesting.  People will use this stamp as a tool.  You can be sure that LGBTQ organizations will buy it in droves for use in their mailings.  People will use it to send letters to people who they KNOW are against LGBTQ issues just to wind them up.  Some people will go in to the post office and will ask for stamps that contain anything BUT Harvey Milk.  People will object to the USPS printing a picture of Harvey Milk on a stamp, even though there have been countless dead heterosexual politicians on stamps in the past.  You can bet that this will come up in church as well.  Conservatives will scowl at their mail and Liberals will rejoice at theirs.  People will pay more attention to the stamps on the envelope than the contents.  It will be fascinating to watch.

The media love a good controversy.  It sells advertising space and generates clicks on webpages for both sides of the debate so you can be sure that this will dominate the airwaves.  Just like in the Pasta Wars talked about earlier you can be sure that this will be whipped up into a frenzy online.  .  All over an image of a dead person.  People will imbue this image with so much stuff and baggage that it will fill days and weeks of time.

Harvey would have loved it.

Big love,

DMx

Pasta Wars: Visual politics and culture at web speed.

A couple of weeks ago there was an unlikely entrant into the visual culture and politics discussion.  Pasta.  Yep, that humble stuff that is usually found dried in boxes or GUIDO-BARILLAcellophane packets in the supermarket.  The stuff that you take home and smoother in tomato sauce, or cream, bacon, cheese, vegetables, and then twirl around forks and eat.  The stuff that is eaten the world over and as kids we used to glue onto pieces of paper to make “art” (clever visual culture reference eh?)  The very same stuff that makes carbohydrate phobic people recoil with terror and Italians scream with joy.  Yes, humble pasta became the centre of the visual culture debate.  Why?  Because of the largest pasta maker in the world, Barilla. and their Chief Executive Officer, Guido Barilla.

Guido Bariilla made a number of comments back at the end of September where he said things that angered a number of people in the LGBTQ community and a lot of straight people too.  The first was that he wouldn’t ever feature gay people in his adverts.  The second thing was that he felt that gay adoption was unfair on children.  The third was that gay people should go and eat a different brand of pasta if they didn’t like this.  This predictably caused a bit of a firestorm against Guido and Barilla.  The internet took off like lightning and before we knew where we were Facebook and Twitter were on fire with people ranting and raving about the whole situation (on both sides).  The whole thing was quickly hotter that the water needed to boil the pasta in and Guido and Barilla were in a jam.  Guido released the predictable apology the next day, which actually made things worse, due to it having not been properly vetted by his marketing folks.  This was swiftly followed up by a video thebertolli day after with a contrite Guido looking appropriately sheepish and promising to meet with homos the world over to solve world hunger, kiss babies, cure cancer, and end world wars.

So what’s the visual culture and politics link to all of this then?  The politics link is easy; LGBTQ issues of course.  It’s always a firestorm and regardless of the rights and wrongs or your beliefs on all of this, Guido Barilla should know better.  His shareholders don’t care about who is right or wrong in the debate about LGBTQ rights.  They just care about people eating bucket loads of pasta, something that his comments put in jeopardy one way or another.  The visual culture side of things though comes in the way that the other pasta companies reacted and how swiftly too.

First off the blocks was Bertolli.  They came out with this image almost immediately that flew around the web like wild-fire.  It’s a testament to their marketing department that they were off the blocks so quickly and it’s an amazing example of the power of social butonimedia.  The images spread almost as quickly as Guido’s faux pas.  They also took care to spread the story through other channels that they had featured television commercials with gay couples in before.  You can see one of them here.

Hotly in pursuit was Buitoni with their effort, also designed to show their inclusivity and to further take advantage of Barillas stumble.  I have no idea what the Butoni position actually is on same-sex equality but at that point in the game it didn’t really matter; they were just another footprint on the back of Barilla who were lying facedown in the dirt as everyone raced over them to declare themselves “Friends of Dorothy”.  The image that they created, as you can see, were direct and to the point.  They didn’t pull any punches at all and stated their position clearly with no room for misinterpretation.  Butoni took a slightly riskier approach perhaps compared to the fun approach of Bertolli but they were both powerful and tapped into the explosive issue that had been kicked off by Guido and they used it for their own ends.

The point of all of this is that the quickest way of “showing solidarity” with the LGBTQ community (and their money) while stealing market share from Barilla was with images and the web.  They recognized the impact of visual images to communicate a message and they took the shortest way to activate it; people and the web.  It took advantage of the fact that a major part of our culture is visual and that it is now also based on accessibility and speed.

Guido and his company didn’t stand a chance.  By the time they got around to doing the video two days 1380825_10151946696603033_2044411317_nlater food banks all over the place were filled  with Barilla pasta and newspapers all across the world had well and truly done a number on Guido and the gang.  It’s only now, two weeks later, that the Facebook page for Barilla in the US has started to post recipes again after a hiatus.  The speed with which it all happened and the way it played out through the visual mediums of pictures and videos was staggering.  The fact that it happened globally was equally incredible.  It’s the first time I can ever recall something like this happening.  Yes, there was an incident with Chik-Fil-A last year, but as a company they are pretty inconsequential compared to a company the size and scale of Barilla.  There was also nowhere near the scale of visual response to the affair as there was this time either.  People were even creating HRC equality signs out of pasta shapes for their Facebook icons!

PASTA_MEMEX400My favourite image that come out of it all was this one.  I saw it online a few minutes after the whole affair happened.  It’s plain, simple, and to the point.  Another example of how visuals work and it communicates its message perfectly, regardless of whether you agree with it or not.  On a more humourous note though I did think to myself that pasta is a funny thing.  Pasta is always a plate or bowl of the same thing.  So it’s “homo” not “hetero” anyway.  “Homopasta” is something we have all grown up with and is entirely natural.  So what’s the big deal?

Big love,

DMx

Sex Box: The Visual Culture of Hidden Sex.

This blog is proving to be interesting. The last post didn’t really contain an image to discuss (other than a cute one of me and my husband) but talked more about the issues around making or not making art a certain kind of art.  I was quite surprised as to how many people clicked the “like” button on the post on Facebook and who found it on WordPress.  This post also follows in a similar vein and also draws its inspiration from a news article that I found.

Here’s a link to the news article that was on Pink News, a web site in the UK that follows LGBTQ news issues in the UK. Basically we have here a show that invites people to have sex, in a box, on TV.  The people who have sex then get to talk about with others on the TV show including Mariella Frostrup from the Observer Newspaper, a panel of experts including relationship adviser Tracey Cox, sex columnist Dan Savage and the author Phillip Hodson.  Not for the faint of heart it seems.  It’s part of Channel Four in England’s “Real Sex” series and is all about reclaiming sex from pornography.  Here is a link to the Channel Four website about the show.  So why is this showing up in my visual culture and politics blog?  Well, there are a number of key points here to think about.article-2429812-1832D13100000578-567_634x417

It’s on television to start with so that makes it about images and video.  It’s about something we either do, want to do. think about doing, and is about something that shows up in other aspects of visual culture.  Sex is in adverts, in magazines, in films, books, and in music too,  So sex is very much about the visual culture of today in my mind.  One only has to think of the flap around Miley Cyrus a few weeks ago at the MTV awards to see that sex and the visual portrayal of it is something that gets people all hot and bothered, even if they dress it up as being about someone’s singing ability instead.

Returning to the TV program then. The part of the article that originally caught my eye was the fact that the show, naughtily called “Sex Box”, will feature three couples, one of which is a gay male couple.  This did surprise me,  We’ve only just got to the point where we can show same-sex couples having a kiss on TV, let alone discuss the fact that they might “do it”.  So this is quite a big step.  Not that anyone is going to see anything anyway.  When the couples enter the “Sex Box”, which is an opaque box in the studio, the TV cameras will be turned off for 20 minutes while the couples “have it off” as it were.  Then, when they exit the box, the cameras start-up again and they engage in a period of conversation with the panel and the TV audience.  Who knows what they will talk about.  For that I guess we will have to wait and see the show itself.  But the idea is that they will talk about the ins and outs of their sex lives (pardon the pun).

Now I am a liberal-minded chap and am into all sorts of telly, when I get time to watch it.  But I’m having a hard time understanding the value of having the box in the studio and then people actually having sex in the box during the recording of the show.  If the conversation was to be about the sex they JUST had, that would be one thing.  But it doesn’t seem to be the case.  The mission is about reclaiming sex from pornography, something that this seems to be skating very close toward.  It’s probably the closest any TV show has come to bringing actual real sex to the audience on a mainstream, free to air channel.  You don’t get to SEE it, but you can bet the tension of it will be in the air, either real or imagined, both in the studio and in the viewers homes.  That’s an interesting new twist on sex and visual imagery, don’t you think?  The ultimate in suggestion, perhaps.  Almost hidden sex.