■jiWaasis'- Ki» jrsj *.
An Interview
wiu; nrust tt;anu»«;?
Coniiniied
demeaning to all the participants.
Why can’t we have
access to art just like the rest of the
boys? Or ladies, sorry.
Anthony: And those who address
those issues?
Blanchon: I’m not going to wait
around and hope art can change
those elements in my life.
Blanchon (cont.): I’ve made them
(these changes) myself and they are
more powerful for me
to be political in other venues. It’s
like something we spoke of in crits
last week; you need
to choose material that is good for
the art and not what is expected of
you. I’m not going to make
art about being gay. I make art for
what I think 1 need to do for good
work. And the material
choice is kind of like content choice.
They are almost like cruel limitations
we place on one
another. It’s like here at UNC,
Chapel Hill, Art Dept., we have one
discussion of race and
identity politics during the one crit of
a person who is not white. It’s also
interesting that
the only other person we conversed
about identity politics stuff with was
you. It’s almost like
we enjoyed the access point or the
privilege of discussing lesbianism
because of who you are.
But 1 think if you were interested in
lesbian visibility in the artworld - do
you want to make work
Page 1Z November 1998
that convinces people there’s an
under-representation of lesbians or
do you want to make work
about the concept of invisibility alto
gether for you? It’s not that being a
dyke makes you
interesting - It’s that being a dyke is
part of you being interesting.
Anthoriy: But who decides what’s
interesting?
Blanchon: We all do, as we’re all
artists. There was an article in the
Village Voice in 1994/5 called
“Lesbian and Gay What-ziz” - like
“whatever” - by Robert Atkins. I had
had a show in NY at White Columns,
and along with other gay artists, was
interviewed over the phone. One
discussion that comes to mind was
in reference to a show that was
traveling to South American and
what was then Eastern Europe, and
this show was organized by, well,
let’s just say a famous gay guy in
NY. I refused to be in the show
because the show really was about
being a gay guy, and I don’t want to
be a gay guy in my work. So any
way, this guy organized this gay guy
show. It seems like an obvious
obliteration or mistake that I’m not in
it. When I’m asked about it, here’s
my response - it’s really kind of sim
ple: I wouldn’t be in a show called,
“Faggots”, but I would be in a show
called “Faggotry”. One is the idea,
the contemplation, the nuance, the
experience -the meaning of the
other. The other is just it as it is, and
it’s not what I do as an artist. I don’t
want to be responsible for fags, just
as I don’t want to be responsible for
straight people - get what you can
and run.