Scan barcode
A review by j_ata
Intimate Companions: A Triography of George Platt Lynes, Paul Cadmus, Lincoln Kirstein, and Their Circle by David Leddick
3.0
It's almost fail-proof material: the fascinating criss-crossing connections—both professionally and personally—of the queer* men whose art and dedication to artistic ideals not only helped establish, in the words of cover synopsis, "a world of gay aesthetics and desire in art that was groundbreaking at the time and remarkable even today," but left an indelible mark on 20th century American art and culture in general. Though the (loooong) title indicates the three figures Leddick specifically focuses upon in his study, it quickly becomes apparent that the life work of these three men intersect with so many others that whole sections, if not entire chapters, become devoted to other individuals, including Glenway Wescott, Monroe Wheeler, Pavel Tchelitchev, Chick Austin, Jared French, Charles Henri Ford, and countless others. Leddick is particularly adept at evoking the vibrancy of the era and all of its various social, artistic, and sexual layers and nuances, and I appreciated the way that he attempts to analyze the vast set of interconnections between an artist's persona life and their artistic output, and a certain painting or photograph often serves as a kaleidoscopic prism through which to explore a wide array of topics historical, personal and otherwise. It certainly makes for an engaging and quick read.
This all said, I still have significant issues with this study. Leddick is also a fiction writer, and there were a number of times I wish that he let the material speak for itself instead of embroidering it with fiction-inspired literary techniques, as sometimes the tones becomes rather annoyingly gossipy, and I skipped all of the fictionalized chapters written in the second person ("you've worked with Miss Dietrich a couple of times and she can be quite a bitch," etc). These section, thankfully, are helpfully printed in italics and easy to spot and skim. It's not that I was looking for a sober, ponderous academic analysis of these figures—that would almost certainly be to miss the spirit of this particular milieu—but sometimes Leddick's approach undercuts his subject matter in a way I'm assuming he did not intend.
And really, it must, be said: if this book implicitly suggests some kind of a gay aesthetic sensibility, the tacky hideousness of this cover stands as a direct affront to it. The elegant Platt Lynes and Kirstein in particular would be horrified. For shame.
___________
*I'm hesitant to categorically lump all of the individuals detailed here simply as "gay" in the same way that the book does, as many of these individuals did not have sexual relationships exclusively with men, and would resist categorizing their sexuality in such a rigid manner. As such, I fall back on the pedantically academic, equally anachronistic "queer," as it allows for a certain fluidity of sexuality and sexual expression that more accurately reflects historical realities.
This all said, I still have significant issues with this study. Leddick is also a fiction writer, and there were a number of times I wish that he let the material speak for itself instead of embroidering it with fiction-inspired literary techniques, as sometimes the tones becomes rather annoyingly gossipy, and I skipped all of the fictionalized chapters written in the second person ("you've worked with Miss Dietrich a couple of times and she can be quite a bitch," etc). These section, thankfully, are helpfully printed in italics and easy to spot and skim. It's not that I was looking for a sober, ponderous academic analysis of these figures—that would almost certainly be to miss the spirit of this particular milieu—but sometimes Leddick's approach undercuts his subject matter in a way I'm assuming he did not intend.
And really, it must, be said: if this book implicitly suggests some kind of a gay aesthetic sensibility, the tacky hideousness of this cover stands as a direct affront to it. The elegant Platt Lynes and Kirstein in particular would be horrified. For shame.
___________
*I'm hesitant to categorically lump all of the individuals detailed here simply as "gay" in the same way that the book does, as many of these individuals did not have sexual relationships exclusively with men, and would resist categorizing their sexuality in such a rigid manner. As such, I fall back on the pedantically academic, equally anachronistic "queer," as it allows for a certain fluidity of sexuality and sexual expression that more accurately reflects historical realities.