gay
www.thebiblog.net, gay, march 2, 2010
despite the prevalence of homosexuals in the field of architecture—i can attest to their high numbers as a member of this group—i cannot say that i have ever come across an architecture that is distinctly homosexual in appearance. it is not surprising given that the architects of past generations operated from within the closet. while paul rudolph's work is often cited as overtly homosexual—the corduroy banding of their yale art and architecture building is said to be a vision of frolicking boys in trousers—i am genuinely left unconvinced.
for susan sontag, the most homosexual of aesthetics is camp, an umbrella term for everything that we homosexuals hold dear: rainbows, lady gaga, the view, mushrooms, mugs, us weekly, lamps (of all sorts), googly eyes, martini's, les misérables, penises, gold spray paint, xena warrior princess, bright colors, androgyny, oprah, rhinestones, cupcakes, textiles, pyramids, dolly parton, to name just a few. camp and architecture, however, lead exclusive lives.
due to the enforced seriousness of the discipline, gay architects have denied themselves their playful inclinations (their propensity for camp), and have insisted on carrying the aesthetic burdens of their heterosexual colleagues and clients in order to prove their capacity for high design - a design discipline version of passing. to this effect, there is no greater insult for the queer, educated architect, than being mistaken for the gay decorator. but, while the homosexual architect operates in the realm of understated polite (boring and outmoded) taste, the gay decorator is playful, loud, garish, silly, humorous, sexy, spontaneous, innovative, absurd, ridiculous, happy, but above all, through their propensity for camp, remains relevant to contemporary practice. it is my sense that in coming out of the closet as homosexuals, collectively as architects, we have left this gay decorator behind. it is about time that they were released to work their magic.