CHAPPAQUA - Artist Maureen Mullarkey, known in the gay community for paintings depicting drag queens and scenes inspired by gay pride parades, responded to criticism of her donation to the campaign to ban gay marriage in California this week by attacking the intimidation of artists who supported Proposition 8.
Mullarkey said she supported the measure, which passed in November overturning an earlier court ruling legalizing gay marriage in California, because she believes "marriage is the union of husband and wife - a premise so simple, so fundamental that nature and civilization itself both testify to the truth of it."
Gay rights groups and Web commentators said Mullarkey was hypocritical to make money off gay people and then donate it to a cause that denying them what they consider a fundamental legal right.
Mullarkey likened the attacks to Nazi "brownshirt tactics."
"Artists are not in the habit of imposing ideological conformity on one another or demanding it from others," she said. "Moreover, regard for individual gay persons does not require assent to a politicized assault on bedrock social reality and the common good."
Bravo Maureen! I echo that last bit, “politicized assault on bedrock social reality and the common good.” So true. By the way, if you’re wondering why someone would want to paint images from a Pride Parade (because I did…wonder, that is), this is what she says on her website:
Why the Gay Pride Parade as a source of imagery?
Because it is marvelous spectacle, an iconographic lode. There is so much to look at. Art is not about “appreciating.” It is about looking. People get accustomed to viewing art through a filter of words: theories, press releases, the pieties of art appreciation. Spectacle cuts through the static.
But wouldn’t any parade do the same thing?
Not for me. I’ve never really like parades that much. How many marching bands can you take before your eyes glaze over? But when the majorette is a middle-aged man in a tutu and sneakers you know you are not in Kansas and you might want to stay awake.
~Pearl
12 Comments:
It's a little bit like going to a freak show where you laugh at people who look strange. There is a possibility that some people who go to these gay pride parades just go to laugh at them. Not all that nice really.
Oops...Secular Heretic. Secular. Not Seculary. It's too early to be awake. :0)
Seculary Heretic,
I disagree. I do not think she laughs at them by painting scenes from their Pride parade. As she said, she likes the "spectacle" of the parade. Meaning, she likes that it is different from any other mundane, marching band parade. For Maureen, it would seem the parades provide a source of artistic inspiration.
What I find particularly "interesting" is that the homosexual community lauded her work until they discovered her Prop 8 donation and now they despise her. As if the money spent to defend marriage suddenly makes her public enemy #1 and her art the bane of their existence.
I do not really like her artwork myself. She's obviously a talented artist, but the subject of her creations does not appeal to me. However, I will absolutely defend her right to legally and democratically support whatever cause she feels strongly about. And as Maureen so wisely stated, "regard for individual gay persons does not require assent to a politicized assault on bedrock social reality and the common good."
I see what you mean Pearl.
Hi! thanks so much for your encouraging comments on my blog:) I am not that articulate so I find it easier to spread the word through copy and paste! lol So I hope you dont mind when I come over and steal your "works" for my own blog to do my part in spreading the word:)
You are welcome, Lisa! It's always nice to find another like-minded individual who is promoting the best possible practices for children and society. I have no problem with you copying and pasting. None at all!
Thanks!!
That bigot bit the hand that feeds her. She deserves nothing but contempt. What a pathetic whiner! She thinks that she can attack people for no reason, and they won't fight back.
That bigot bit the hand that feeds her. She deserves nothing but contempt. What a pathetic whiner! She thinks that she can attack people for no reason, and they won't fight back.
Dear Pearl readers,
Though it violates the terms of my comment section for its obvious disrespect, I wanted to post that last comment submitted by libhom in order to illustrate the very irrational, angry, and unreasonable nature of homosexual exceptions activists. If one disagrees with a homosexual exception activist by donating to a cause that does not align with the HEA beliefs, they are immediately branded a "bigot" and a "whiner" and unfairly dragged through the mud.
Libhom, apparently you do not value our democracy, for the very same First Amendment of the Constitution which allows you to unkindly malign and slander another citizen, simultaneously allows Maureen to act in a democratic manner based on her freedom of belief.
However, intimidation and harassment of others based on their democratic voting and donation record is not a protected freedom in our Constitution. So please tell me, do you still advocate something which is, borrowing the term from HEA Tom Hanks, "un-American?"
Please be respectful in your response; future comments like that featured above will not be tolerated.
I agree Pearl, that type of reaction is not called for. It's ok to have a civilized discussion and disagree on things but name calling is just immature.
I've never read anywhere about the artist attacking anyone.
Maybe we could restate libhorn's comment -- minus the disrespectful language.
Maureen Mullarkey is known for her paintings which depict drag queens and scenes inspired by gay pride parades.
These spectacle are the subjects of her art. In effect, these have enabled her to prosper as an artist.
1. This is the "hand that feeds her".
Mullarkey made a financial contribution to the Yes-on-8 campaign. She made that money through her depictions of drag queens and gay pride parades.
She defended all artists who have become targets of anti-8 protestors. She voiced criticism.
2. This is the bite in the "bites the hand that feeds her".
Mullarkey's explanation of her view of marriage, and of the ideological independence of artists, and of the anti-8 tactic of reprisals -- all of that -- is held in contempt by liborn.
3. Her explanations provide "no good reason" to criticize people.
4. All of the above makes Mullarkey a "pathetic whiner".
Mullarkey deserves to be the target of the sort of reprisals that she has criticized. She should not complaint about it because it is normal to attack critics of the anti-8 protestors.
5. This is the "fighting back" that can be expected because it is obvious, normal, and jusified.
* * *
libhorn, would that accurately restate (and upack) your intended meaning?
Post a Comment