What do you think?
Rate this book
The Sexual Perspective: Homosexuality and Art in the Last 100 Years in the West
First published in 1986 to wide critical acclaim, The Sexual Perspective broke new ground by bringing together and discussing the painting, sculpture and photography of artists who were gay/lesbian/queer/bisexual. The lavishly illustrated new edition discusses the greater lesbian visibility within the visual arts and artist's responses to the AIDS epidemic. Emmanuel Cooper places the art in its artistic, social and legal contexts, making it a vital contribution to current debates about art, gender, identity and sexuality.
396 pages, Hardcover
First published November 1, 1986
6 people are currently reading
81 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
February 21, 2025
The most obvious problem with this book is that it is dated, there are huge swathes of the art world that don't get a look in. But my biggest problem with this book is the one I had with the Tate's 2017 'Queer British Art 1861-1967', what makes something 'Queer Art'? Is the artists sexual orientation or the subject of their work? Is, for example, Michael Wishart, very queer in his personal life (see his memoirs 'High Diver') but who did not paint identifiable 'queer' subjects a 'queer artist? None of Wishart's work made it into the Tate show but Noel Coward's dressing gown and the door to Oscar Wilde's cell in Reading gaol did. So again I am left asking what is 'queer' art.
Admittedly Cooper's is subtitled 'Homosexuality and Art in the Last 100 Years in the West' so his concentration on representation of the nude male (he also discusses Lesbian artists and their work but it feels vestigial) is more understandable but it leads him to make sweeping statements like 'Most of (Francis) Bacon's figures are taken from the nude male...' which while not totally untrue begs the question where works like 'Screaming Pope' fit in.
The lack of definition, is not surprising perhaps, in a book first published in 1986, not surprising. Things were either being said for the first time or were thought to need definition. Again I can't help referring to the Tate's 2017 exhibition and the many comments/complaints I read at the time from visitors who were unhappy that 'queer art' didn't show 'queer life'. But for most people I still think 'queer art' means men's dicks. I refer you to a site for a recent auction of gay/queer art:
https://bid.vallots.com/auctions/5-1L...
Cooper's book is wonderful collection of images but I honestly don't think that much of what he says is relevant or lasting.
Admittedly Cooper's is subtitled 'Homosexuality and Art in the Last 100 Years in the West' so his concentration on representation of the nude male (he also discusses Lesbian artists and their work but it feels vestigial) is more understandable but it leads him to make sweeping statements like 'Most of (Francis) Bacon's figures are taken from the nude male...' which while not totally untrue begs the question where works like 'Screaming Pope' fit in.
The lack of definition, is not surprising perhaps, in a book first published in 1986, not surprising. Things were either being said for the first time or were thought to need definition. Again I can't help referring to the Tate's 2017 exhibition and the many comments/complaints I read at the time from visitors who were unhappy that 'queer art' didn't show 'queer life'. But for most people I still think 'queer art' means men's dicks. I refer you to a site for a recent auction of gay/queer art:
https://bid.vallots.com/auctions/5-1L...
Cooper's book is wonderful collection of images but I honestly don't think that much of what he says is relevant or lasting.
June 20, 2021
I should begin by saying that I read the 1986 version rather than the updated edition so cannot comment upon how the author has dealt with the AIDs crisis and the vast amount of artworks that it inspired. Even that updated version is a quarter of a century old now.
Really, this book is a one-star volume but 'I did not like it' is too harsh. Really it one one star because it is entirely outdated and one could find out all this history in a few hours (half an hour?) on the net. As other reviewers have stated, there is a big flaw in the opening chapter (did it get corrected second time out? A VERY poor show it it didn't!) and it does become a bit of a dull read partly as it feels a bit list-like in terms of artists.
Hindsight is also a wonderful thing, but it seems to me that the author has missed a few tricks by not including more film in his overview. For example, Warhol's films only receive two paragraphs in the book and only talks about 'Blow-job' yet there is obviously a lot more than can be said on them. And if one writes on Warhol then where is the rest of the underground film scene? Surely Kenneth Anger ('Fireworks', Scorpio Rising' etc) and Jack Smith 'Flaming Creatures' are worth a few lines as well.
Perhaps this was because film and 'video art' were struggling to be recognized as such by the 'art-world' proper. In those days, art photography will still mainly exhibited in 'photography galleries'. I worked in one in the early 90s and it was, even then quite radical for exhibiting 'lens-based media' which meant it could include 'video art' and early 'computer' art. I think it showed some Nan Goldin back then- another name missed out in this book. And why no Evergon? Both were 'names' even in the 1980s.
I could also whine on about no Alastair Henning, or indeed any of the post-Beardsley school of illustration. Beardsley wasn't gay but is included as he was associated with Oscar Wilde and perhaps there could have been a bit more about literature/poetry in the book, 'Dorian Gray', Huysman's 'Against Nature', Radclyffe-Hall's 'Well of Loneliness and Djuna Barnes 'Nightwood' get cited but precious little else, no Proust, no Burroughs, and come to think of it, why no Gysin? However, interestingly there is a section on Ralph Chubb who I imagine is still fairly unknown outside 'Uranian' circles even now.
So, if you really know nothing at all about queer art, or more accurately 'gender-fluid' art (a number of the artists in this book are bisexual/fluid) it is worth a brief skim, otherwise look elsewhere- you do not need to own this book.
Really, this book is a one-star volume but 'I did not like it' is too harsh. Really it one one star because it is entirely outdated and one could find out all this history in a few hours (half an hour?) on the net. As other reviewers have stated, there is a big flaw in the opening chapter (did it get corrected second time out? A VERY poor show it it didn't!) and it does become a bit of a dull read partly as it feels a bit list-like in terms of artists.
Hindsight is also a wonderful thing, but it seems to me that the author has missed a few tricks by not including more film in his overview. For example, Warhol's films only receive two paragraphs in the book and only talks about 'Blow-job' yet there is obviously a lot more than can be said on them. And if one writes on Warhol then where is the rest of the underground film scene? Surely Kenneth Anger ('Fireworks', Scorpio Rising' etc) and Jack Smith 'Flaming Creatures' are worth a few lines as well.
Perhaps this was because film and 'video art' were struggling to be recognized as such by the 'art-world' proper. In those days, art photography will still mainly exhibited in 'photography galleries'. I worked in one in the early 90s and it was, even then quite radical for exhibiting 'lens-based media' which meant it could include 'video art' and early 'computer' art. I think it showed some Nan Goldin back then- another name missed out in this book. And why no Evergon? Both were 'names' even in the 1980s.
I could also whine on about no Alastair Henning, or indeed any of the post-Beardsley school of illustration. Beardsley wasn't gay but is included as he was associated with Oscar Wilde and perhaps there could have been a bit more about literature/poetry in the book, 'Dorian Gray', Huysman's 'Against Nature', Radclyffe-Hall's 'Well of Loneliness and Djuna Barnes 'Nightwood' get cited but precious little else, no Proust, no Burroughs, and come to think of it, why no Gysin? However, interestingly there is a section on Ralph Chubb who I imagine is still fairly unknown outside 'Uranian' circles even now.
So, if you really know nothing at all about queer art, or more accurately 'gender-fluid' art (a number of the artists in this book are bisexual/fluid) it is worth a brief skim, otherwise look elsewhere- you do not need to own this book.
May 4, 2016
I decided to not finish this book by the time I'd reached page 4.
This has never happened to me before. Usually, I give an author at least the first third of the volume before I give up on him, but this time was different because Emmanuel Cooper destroyed whatever credibility he had on page 4. What happened?
"The Sexual Perspective" is about homosexuality in the arts. It's a great and important topic, well worth discussing. I'm an art historian, so I was very interested. One of the first artworks Cooper discusses is Donatello's bronze David, one of the most famous works of Italian Renaissance art. It is definitly an example for homosexual aesthetics in the arts at the time and Cooper goes on to show this by describing the statue to the reader.
And now it comes: he gets the description wrong.
I don't know what David he was thinking of when he wrote this, but it's not the Donatello. Cooper bases his whole argument on the fact that the young man stands on a helmet decorated with a feather that curves up the leg and touched the figures genitals. The problem is that Donatello's David does not stand on a helmet (he's standing on Goliath's head) and there is no feather touching his genitals. There is nothing else that touches the figure's genitals either. Goliath's helmet is decorated with a feather but it only reaches up to David's knee. Illustrating this wrong description, on the same page even, is a picture of the David statue. Apparently, neither the author nor the editor realized the discrepancy.
I'm sorry, but if he got something so fundamental wrong, what am I supposed to believe of his other examples and arguments? Call me pedantic, but this isn't a novel it's supposed to be non-fiction and while interpretation is a matter of perspective, the work of art itself is unchangeable. If he got it wrong with a world-famous statue, what about less well-known works? Art history is a science, and judging by this Cooper's work isn't sound science.
This has never happened to me before. Usually, I give an author at least the first third of the volume before I give up on him, but this time was different because Emmanuel Cooper destroyed whatever credibility he had on page 4. What happened?
"The Sexual Perspective" is about homosexuality in the arts. It's a great and important topic, well worth discussing. I'm an art historian, so I was very interested. One of the first artworks Cooper discusses is Donatello's bronze David, one of the most famous works of Italian Renaissance art. It is definitly an example for homosexual aesthetics in the arts at the time and Cooper goes on to show this by describing the statue to the reader.
And now it comes: he gets the description wrong.
I don't know what David he was thinking of when he wrote this, but it's not the Donatello. Cooper bases his whole argument on the fact that the young man stands on a helmet decorated with a feather that curves up the leg and touched the figures genitals. The problem is that Donatello's David does not stand on a helmet (he's standing on Goliath's head) and there is no feather touching his genitals. There is nothing else that touches the figure's genitals either. Goliath's helmet is decorated with a feather but it only reaches up to David's knee. Illustrating this wrong description, on the same page even, is a picture of the David statue. Apparently, neither the author nor the editor realized the discrepancy.
I'm sorry, but if he got something so fundamental wrong, what am I supposed to believe of his other examples and arguments? Call me pedantic, but this isn't a novel it's supposed to be non-fiction and while interpretation is a matter of perspective, the work of art itself is unchangeable. If he got it wrong with a world-famous statue, what about less well-known works? Art history is a science, and judging by this Cooper's work isn't sound science.
May 6, 2019
A great resource for people looking into LGBT+ art history.
Pros of reading this book; you'll find out a large number of artist names.
Cons; the book jumps between artists so can feel quite 'messy' and repetitive at times.
As mentioned in a previous review, the description of page 4 is wrong. The writer seems to be stretching too much to confirm his opinion.
All in all a great book, but it did get painful to read towards the end just because the writing style was kind of dull. I'm glad I read it though as it drew my attention to a lot of artists I hadn't heard of.
Pros of reading this book; you'll find out a large number of artist names.
Cons; the book jumps between artists so can feel quite 'messy' and repetitive at times.
As mentioned in a previous review, the description of page 4 is wrong. The writer seems to be stretching too much to confirm his opinion.
All in all a great book, but it did get painful to read towards the end just because the writing style was kind of dull. I'm glad I read it though as it drew my attention to a lot of artists I hadn't heard of.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews