Schlock, Schtick, Kitsch, and Cliche: Telling Bad from Good in Art Influenced by the Queer Revolution

If art influenced by the gay and lesbian revolution since 1969 is to be more widely recognized as a legitimate expressive genre, and compete with art already judged to be valuable, artists, collectors, curators, critics, foundation donors, gallery owners, museum directors, and the public need to participate in explicit debates about what criteria begin to distinguish good and bad samples of such art.

OPEN ENTRY: This entry is open to collaborative creation by anyone with evidence, citations, and analysis to share, so no particular, named creator is responsible for the accuracy and cogency of its content. Please use this entry's Comment section at the bottom of the page to suggest improvements about which you are unsure. Thanks.

This is a stub, an entry with no, little or incomplete data. If this entry is Open users are encouraged to add to it, or to leave comments in its Discuss section. If this entry is Protected, users are encouraged to use its Discuss section to suggest new data, sources, citations, or edits.

Criteria

Should these criteria be the same standards used to judge good and bad art in general? If so, can we begin to make those standards explicit?

Are there special criteria for judging art that portrays sexually explicit acts, homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual?

Are there special criteria for art focusing on and communicating a response to same-sex desire and activity?

Are there special criteria for judging works produced by artists whose behavior or desire is known to be gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender?

Back to ZAP! Art and the Queer Revolution, 1969-present