Mainstream Gay Media
I read a quote from an article yesterday that questioned whether the new gay TV networks that are being developed would cover the full spectrum of gay organizations and causes, or just the "mainstream" ones like HRC, GLAAD and the Log Cabin Club. I thought it was a good question. I don't know the answer, but I do know one thing; thirty years ago, the question could not have been asked. There wasn't much gay media then, let alone a "mainstream" of it. This was, of course, before VCR's and video tapes, personal computers and the internet; but back then gays had almost no representation in print and virtually none in television and films either.
The picture at the top is the kind of image one might find in a "physique pictorial", which you might find in a newstand in a large city, along with nudist magazines and the laughable "penis enlargement" mags, (Modern Penis Enlargement Techniques: A Philosophic Approach. -Fully Illustrated-). They were cheaply produced and printed, expensive and hard to find. Other than the fact that these publications featured pictures of naked men, there really wasn't anything gay about them. In fact, the subject of sexual orientation was carefully avoided.
There was one glossy source of beefcake in the 70's, After Dark, which billed itself as "The National Magazine of Entertainment". It covered the world of theater, dance and film and was aimed at the emerging gay market. There were usually a few arty nude photos of actors or dancers, but the word "gay" wasn't used. Still, the magazine provided lots of hints that there were gay people out there living interesting lives. The Advocate was just getting started around this time, but it was small and hard to get in most of the country; subscriptions were mailed in plain brown wrappers. The face of gay culture was simply not reflected by the media then; gays in most of the country had no idea just how many of us there were.
When I look back on that time, it's almost hard to remember how it was. I expect that younger people have a hard time imagining a time when gay images and gay news and gay television weren't available, when there was almost no place to go for affirmation and information. Or even to read a gay man's journal.
Now, the images are everywhere, or nearly so, and the process of "mainstreaming" has begun, as it will whenever a marketing department is involved. The major magazines and shows like "Will and Grace" and Queer As Folk" are commercial ventures and as such they try to appeal to the widest audience while offending the fewest potential members. It's the way things work. But I think we need to try to present the broadest possible picture of gay life; there's a lot of room at the table and we all know how it feels to be on the outside of things.
Personally, I still get a bit of a shock sometimes from a hot scene in a film or, say, QAF. I remember a time when it was almost unimaginable that such a thing would be shown. We've come along way in thirty years.
I read a quote from an article yesterday that questioned whether the new gay TV networks that are being developed would cover the full spectrum of gay organizations and causes, or just the "mainstream" ones like HRC, GLAAD and the Log Cabin Club. I thought it was a good question. I don't know the answer, but I do know one thing; thirty years ago, the question could not have been asked. There wasn't much gay media then, let alone a "mainstream" of it. This was, of course, before VCR's and video tapes, personal computers and the internet; but back then gays had almost no representation in print and virtually none in television and films either.
The picture at the top is the kind of image one might find in a "physique pictorial", which you might find in a newstand in a large city, along with nudist magazines and the laughable "penis enlargement" mags, (Modern Penis Enlargement Techniques: A Philosophic Approach. -Fully Illustrated-). They were cheaply produced and printed, expensive and hard to find. Other than the fact that these publications featured pictures of naked men, there really wasn't anything gay about them. In fact, the subject of sexual orientation was carefully avoided.
There was one glossy source of beefcake in the 70's, After Dark, which billed itself as "The National Magazine of Entertainment". It covered the world of theater, dance and film and was aimed at the emerging gay market. There were usually a few arty nude photos of actors or dancers, but the word "gay" wasn't used. Still, the magazine provided lots of hints that there were gay people out there living interesting lives. The Advocate was just getting started around this time, but it was small and hard to get in most of the country; subscriptions were mailed in plain brown wrappers. The face of gay culture was simply not reflected by the media then; gays in most of the country had no idea just how many of us there were.
When I look back on that time, it's almost hard to remember how it was. I expect that younger people have a hard time imagining a time when gay images and gay news and gay television weren't available, when there was almost no place to go for affirmation and information. Or even to read a gay man's journal.
Now, the images are everywhere, or nearly so, and the process of "mainstreaming" has begun, as it will whenever a marketing department is involved. The major magazines and shows like "Will and Grace" and Queer As Folk" are commercial ventures and as such they try to appeal to the widest audience while offending the fewest potential members. It's the way things work. But I think we need to try to present the broadest possible picture of gay life; there's a lot of room at the table and we all know how it feels to be on the outside of things.
Personally, I still get a bit of a shock sometimes from a hot scene in a film or, say, QAF. I remember a time when it was almost unimaginable that such a thing would be shown. We've come along way in thirty years.
posted by durlx at 3/06/2002 01:34:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home