Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
 

Avram Finkelstein’s Words Resonate

silence-1.jpg
“Silence = Death”. That simple phrase became – and remains – an anthem for AIDS activists. And it wouldn’t exist without Avram Finkelstein.

Raised by appropriately Marxist parents here in New York, the natural born activist became involved in the AIDS movement after his boyfriend died of the then-new disease. Mourning the loss of friends and family, Finkelstein and his five friends organized a casual group that would later become Gran Fury, a creative collective responsible for much of ACT-UP’s visual campaigns.

Old Belonsky spoke with Finkelstein recently and got an earful on how the public space has evolved, the role of gender in the presidential campaigns and whether a thirteen-year old American Idol fan can be called an “activist”. The answer’s “yes”.

Andrew Belonsky: Have you always been drawn to art?

Avram Finkelstein: Yeah, I was raised as an artist – I was the artist in the family. I’m a red diaper baby, so I come from a lefty background. It’s one of the few family situations where people want you to be an artist, instead of discouraging it.

AB: What was the first art that attracted you?

AF: A lot of friends of the family working for the WPA, so I’ve always loved social realism work: political posters, I’ve always loved that.

AB: So your view of art has always been tied to the political message behind it?

AF: Yes, very much so. Truthfully, the whole idea of Silence = Death came from street posters – I formed this small men’s consciousness raising group with three friends of mine before ACT-UP even existed. We felt like there was no place to talk about AIDS. It was having such a dramatic impact on our lives and we just didn’t know what to do. So, I had dinner with a couple of friends and we all said, “We should form a CR group and meet up every week”. We decided to each ask one person and that became the Silent = Death group.

AB: What year was this?

AF: 1986.

AB: This was after your boyfriend died?

AF: Yeah, he died in ’84, so actually I think we started meeting in ’85. We were going for about a year. We had dinner and talked about our fears and fears of sex, loneliness – and every week it would come back to politics. After about six months of that, I said, “You know, in the 60s, if people wanted to communicate – and there was no way to find a voice – people put posters in the streets”. That’s how people knew about meetings, ideas – everything! It was in the street.” So I said, “Why don’t we do a poster?” I proposed the project and that’s how it happened.

AB: Do you think posters are effective today? There are posters and advertising on every space.

AF: I do – I mean, there was advertising then and that was part of the strategy: to intervene on the commercial space with a message that was not commercial. That’s why we chose postering. We decided against doing these flat-footed, didactic Marxist tomes with lots of text and instead chose to do high gloss posters. And, in fact, the design of the poster – we discussed it endlessly and decided to go with what we called “yuppie graphics” – fonts that were popular at the time, so it was deceptive and would draw an unsuspecting bystander into a very serious conversation. It had to work on two levels: you had to be able to see it and think about it as you were whisking by in a cab, but then it had to work on a street level.

Having said that, I don’t think it could ever work in this social landscape, no. I don’t think it would be possible. It’s not so much about having to compete on the media landscape as what public space is now, as opposed to public space then. Public spaces – although there are a lot of people who would argue against it – are largely new media. I don’t really think it’s about the streets. It’s about the internet.

graction.jpg
AB: Do you think there’s going to be a backlash against the internet. If I remember the argument correctly, my colleague, Rebecca Aronauer says that with the economy shrinking and people being out of work, they’re not going to be on the internet as much, but on the streets looking for work.

AF: I think that’s a very good point. There are a lot of arguments against the internet as an organizing space – that’s one of them – and I don’t think she’s wrong about that, but let’s not forget cell phones. Even if you’re out of work and don’t have a computer, everyone has a cell phone – not everyone uses it the same way – but it’s certainly a way to reach a certain portion of America. The real question is “Who are activists now?” And that depends on the issue.

If you’re using cellphones, it’s a totally different demographic. And ultimately these things are just like advertising – it’s about the audience. You have to fully consider the audience. We live in a culture that’s run on images, so the kind of image is essential and the audience always has to be considered.

I had one other thought about whether the poster strategy could work today – in the eighties, they had given all these tax abatements for building and there was tons of construction going on in New York. That’s the only place you’re allowed to paste posters; if you put it on any other site, it’s illegal. The fact that there’s no construction in New York is another reason why it wouldn’t be possible.

AB: But there’s so much construction in New York. I walk by at least five construction sites every day!

AF: Well, there’s more than there was ten years ago, but not as much as there was in the eighties, and it’s about to freeze up again. All of this stuff comes into play.

gfkiss.jpg
AB: What you were saying about who is an activist and an activist existing in relation to their audience – that could be a thirteen-year old girl talking to her schoolmates about which boy they should vote for on American Idol.

AF: That’s right.

AB: Does that trivialize activism? When you say “activism,” most people don’t think of a thirteen year old girl -

AF: See, I would disagree with you. The thing about me is that I’m part old school Marxist and part pop culture poet. I really love pop culture. I think pop culture in America is almost like folk art to other cultures: it’s the way we communicate with each other, it’s so woven into our identities. I think it’s a big mistake to separate it out.

You know how they say that coming out is about taking the next step? “If you just take the next step, that’s a big thing to do and everyone can participate in moving us ahead in their own way.” Well, I think that’s true for politics in general. Trying to look at it in big strokes isn’t really how our culture utilizes ideas and images. It’s a much slower process – ideas get thrown into the market place for a while, then rejected, but they don’t exactly go away.

I really believe in incremental change. I really believe that anyone can be an activist. I think that almost any action that you take that questions is an act of activism. So, I’m happy to have a 13-year old girl talking about an issue.

gfaid.jpg
AB: What do you think of AIDS activism today? Specifically with regard to glossy MTV’s drives and the such. Do you think too immersed in celebrity, that the message gets lost?

AF: That’s such a layered situation – I have a lot of feelings about it. On the one level, any conversation about it as opposed to no conversation is better. But health care in America is a very separate issue. There’s no way you can address AIDS without considering that and that was one of the mistakes that was made, I think.

There was such a dire, urgent need for activism to save people’s lives. People became very mired in getting drugs into these people’s bodies, but didn’t really consider the context in which those drugs were being approved, marketed, which bodies they were going to, the way that capitalism works in terms of funding health care – all of those issues should have been considered and I don’t think they were. We painted ourselves into a corner by not considering that.

In a capitalist culture, there’s more money to be made on somebody being sick than on somebody being cured. By accepting the model that something can be a managed, chronic condition as opposed to there being a cure, you’re giving up ground. It may have been inevitable, but I think that would have been a wise, strategic fight: trying to put the cure back into everything.

AB: Do you think they’re ever going find the cure? Obviously there are so many factors, but are you hopeful?

AF: Well, scientifically, in terms of research, there could be a cure. I think it’s definitely possible. Whether there will be is another question. I’m dubious about it, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t such a thing as pure science, that a scientist who isn’t connected to a research institute can come up with something. I think probably it’s just a matter of time until they do. I was raised in a world in which nothing the government does is implausible: no plot, no conspiracy is implausible.

AB: Do you have any faith in the government?

AF: Well, yeah, of course I do, but not in these terms. I look at everything with a very skeptical eye.

AB: What do you think of this political season?

AF: As you can tell, I’m a political junkie. I’m fully immersed in it. I’m supporting Obama. Regardless of whether he has a chance or regardless of whether he wins, this is a moment in history that I think is really essential to the American mind and that’s why I’m supporting him. That’s not to say I’m not torn, because I also think this is a moment in terms of gender issues.

AB: With regard to discussions of racism and sexism in the coverage of this election – do you think that Hillary’s femininity is getting eclipsed by Barack’s race?

AF: I don’t think you can look at this presidential race without calling into question our cultural history.

AB: Are people forgetting about gender?

AF: I think the only people who are forgetting about gender are white guys. White guys are very sensitive to the question of a woman presidential candidate. I think white guys are probably much less sensitive to questions of misogyny than to questions of race – but I’m talking about white guys of a certain age. Younger white guys were raised in a different world. There’s something about privilege that’s blinding. I think that privilege and class are really the two issues in America – everything else falls around that. Where ever you fall on the spectrum of privilege, you’re blinded to what’s below you. There’s this one- way mirror that privilege creates. People tend to think that everyone is like them.

AB: Do you think that’s wishful thinking so people don’t have to think about difference or is it from a severe self-centrism?

AF: I’m not sure I would characterize it either way. It could be that either and both of those things are probably at work. It’s interesting you mention narcissim, because I think that does apply to questions of class. Everything seen is a reflection of one’s own status, so maybe narcissism isn’t such a bad way to characterize it. America is such a particular case with such a particular psychology behind it – it’s part pioneer, it’s young – we’re very naive about the cynical motives of people with power. The Europeans have lived through many generations of corruption and we Americans are seen as very naive and trusting. Those are good things and bad things.

AB: And you can’t disregard the Puritanism.

AF: Plus it’s multi-race, it’s multi-ethnic. Truthfully, I think America’s just beginning to show itself. It’s beginning to grow up. Watergate was a wake-up call: it was the first time we ever admitted that it was possible that the corridors of power were being manipulated. I think people are less likely to be shocked by something like that now and more likely to say, “Yeah, this stuff happens.”

By:           Andrew Belonksy
On:           Feb 25, 2008
Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • 11 Comments
    • Charley
      Charley

      I don’t get it. Larry Kramer is priviledged, as a matter of fact his brother just died and left a fortune. Larry gave millions to Yale. Without Larry there would not have been Act Up.

      Feb 25, 2008 at 7:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Charley
      Charley

      Of course, I am referring to his quote,

      “There’s something about privilege that’s blinding. I think that privilege and class are really the two issues in America – everything else falls around that. Where ever you fall on the spectrum of privilege, you’re blinded to what’s below you. There’s this one- way mirror that privilege creates. People tend to think that everyone is like them.”

      Feb 25, 2008 at 8:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jack Jett
      Jack Jett

      Great interview Belonsky….and a very important one.

      Silence = Death was a mantra for us boys in the 80′s who were banging on the doors of phramacutical companies, and marching on Washington trying to get someone to help our sick friends.

      I never knew the background behind it.
      Thanks Professor.

      Feb 25, 2008 at 8:21 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Charley
      Charley

      Keith Haring’s “Silence = Death” art became famous and brought in millions. I see where he got his ideas. Thanks Avram. An unsung hero.

      Feb 25, 2008 at 8:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • M Shane
      M Shane

      I’m too astonished to say much at the moment! This is the first actual politicakl thinker I’ve seen referred to or talked to on the
      popular gay net! Brilliant !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Feb 26, 2008 at 6:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • M Shane
      M Shane

      Americans have never come to terms with the fact that for as few people to be excessively wealthy, it requires there to be an extraordinary group of despirate poor people to do their work and to take advantage of.
      I don’t know how much americans are naive and trusting as they simply are ignorant. I agree with you Charlie in that Priviledge and class are the two most important issues Ignorance enables those.
      The point about their being huge bucks to be made from a continuingly sick group of people is so true, as long as money can be suckered off of people by private enterprizes.

      Feb 26, 2008 at 8:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Charley
      Charley

      Finklestein’s family were Marxist, who saw the Royal Family of Russia as all that was evil. Everything should be divided up between all people. It was an experiment, and didn’t work. It gets back to private enterprise, and the opportunistic and “good at business” win. Look at Bloomberg, Barry Diller, David Geffen, Newhouse, all huge fortunes and Russian Jews.
      It is not about class, it is about greed.

      Feb 26, 2008 at 9:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Charley
      Charley

      Oh, I left out the Lauder’s, the royal family of Russia Jews. Estee pushed face cream to the masses, and that is history. Good marketing and packaging, because you could put lard on your face and get the same results. It’s all about opportunity and a gullible public, and America has a huge public ready to believe anything. That is why we are in dangerous times, like Germany during the Nazi brainwashing.

      Feb 26, 2008 at 9:11 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • M Shane
      M Shane

      You couldn’t be more correct Charlie; If really like America is the major country that didn’t lesson one about ww2. About Fascism. These are such dangerous times that I feel like hiding in a cellar now. The main hazard being that ordinary people don’t have a clue.
      I have a lslight hint that maybe Finklestein has ceased to keep up(modernise) the “Marxist” end of his beliefs and pays more attention to aesthetics theory. Mayvbe not.???
      Thank you though: These are incredibly dangerous times that people just tap dance around.

      Feb 27, 2008 at 12:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • conrad
      conrad

      charley- i think its naive to think act up would not have started without larry kramer. sure, maybe the group that formed wouldn’t be called act up, but we dont live in a vacuum. something was stirring, he and his crew just put a name to it first.

      not to mention that many people (including folx in ACT UP NYC) were also critical of Larry Kramer’s GMHC for being too institutional and not doing the important work of calling out the medical industrial complex and all its capitalist shortcomings. instead GMHC was lining the pockets of pharmaceticual companies with profits soaked in the blood of folx dying with AIDS. and im not saying GMHC was a bad thing, but that it had its limitations, and many of those limitations i believe came from seeing the AIDS genocide from a more privileged point of view.

      also, people should read “white nights and ascending shadows” if they want more good shit like this interview. its a well done oral history of the aids epidemic focused on the s.f. area.

      Feb 27, 2008 at 1:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Charley
      Charley

      Conrad, I am sure you are right. Kramer just became a lightning rod for the AIDS movement because of his contacts with the media, namely, NYT.

      Feb 27, 2008 at 3:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Queerty now requires you to log in to comment

    Please log in to add your comment.

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.

  • POPULAR ON QUEERTY

    FOLLOW US
     



    GET QUEERTY'S DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.