Artist Maureen Mullarkey is known, among other things, for her paintings of drag queens, gay pride parades, and all types of homos in her Guise & Dolls series. But guess whose name was on a list of Prop 8 donors? Ms. Mullarkey’s, that’s who. We told you about her yesterday, and after threatening to sue a reporter working on a story about her — artists do love their First Amendment — she’s finally responding to criticism.
Calling the attacks on her character similar to Nazi “brownshirt tactics,” Mullarkey says, “Artists are not in the habit of imposing ideological conformity on one another or demanding it from others. Moreover, regard for individual gay persons does not require assent to a politicized assault on bedrock social reality and the common good.”
Anyone else’s bullshit detector going off?
Ms. Mullarkey’s email address is [email protected].
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
Alexa
Um ok. So spending her money to stop others getting married isn’t imposing her ideology on other people? Look, I don’t care if she thinks same sex marriage is icky or nasty or against the Bible or whatever her problem with it is, so long as I don’t have to interact with her she can hold whatever opinion she wants on any subject. But I do care that she’s imposing her opinions on other people and actively contributing to removing our civil rights.
Brian
she has a message waiting from me.
kevin
how can you have “regard for an individual gay person” and then insist they be maintained in second class citizen status? The woman is an idiot.
Matt
And she compares us to Nazis… she’s obviously lost it completely.
walt zipprian
Crush her completely.
John K.
She sure lives up to her name
Sam
………………and sent.
Eminent Victorian
She seems to make money off of us, but she’d prefer that we were kept a rung or two below her? We’re not Gorillas in the Mist! Initially, I had some trepidation about the ethics of being privy to a citizen’s voting choices–in fact, I still think we should maintain our rights to voting privacy when we’re not running for office ourselves, etc.–but this is a listing of financial contributors, and it is fascinating as we begin to see what people pop up on it.
Seosamh
She’s a parasite.
blake
@Eminent Victorian:
Exactly! This woman thinks of gays like they are animals in cages or the wild–creatures to be observed and exploited for her financial gain.
Sadly, this is the same kind of treatment that other oppressed people have experienced. Their images or creative work appropriated by another for profit. Think about the history of putting native people in cages or taking them on carnival tours for others to observe them. Similarly, think about freakshows, where the physically unusual are put on display for the amusement of others.
That’s who this woman is.
Kinda reminds me of the controversy over the producers of “Slumdog Millionare” paying their young child actors a few dollars in local currency. The producer said that they put some money in a trustfund for the impoverished children for higher education if they graduated from high school. However, given that they are extremely poor, it’s highly unlikely that the children will graduate and obtain the money. Exploitation!
CondeNasty
@Kevin:
“how can you have “regard for an individual gay person” and then insist they be maintained in second class citizen status?”
Easy, I grew up in the south and old biddys could tolerate a hairdresser or decorator with a bit flourish but spit nails about “perverts” very time they drive past a public park or trukstop.
Having studied art extensively I read her mission statement regarding the “Guise and Dolls” series with its harkening iconic references to medieval festivals….CRAP. The images are not celebratory they are exploitative, macabre, and frankly rather poor.
kevin
For a right-wing, homobigoted Catholic like Mullarkey to scream “brownshirts!” against ANYONE is so “pot calling kettle black” it’s art.
Geoff
I really appreciate it when there is an email address or some sort of contact info attached at the end of a story like this.
leschuck
She paid money to strip gay Californians of civil equality. is it really a stretch to see her paintings of transgressive gay culture not as some sort of paeon, but as a mockery of those she holds down?
Don’t pay for your own oppression–don’t buy this bigot’s anti-gay paintings.
Russ
Here’s what I emailed to her today:
Why would you fund a measure that would deny rights to gay people? Why would you fund a measure that makes gay people second class citizens? How is it that gay marriages in California affect you in any way, shape or form? Do you believe it is your mission in life to destroy the hopes and dreams of others? Do you know that your support of Proposition 8 not only hurts gay people, it also hurts their families and friends? Did you seek to hurt millions of people with your donation to Proposition 8? Why is it you make money off gay images, take money from gay people for that art, and then turn around and use the money made off those gay images to harm gay people? What did you gain by supporting something so hateful? Why would you want to do something that brings more ugliness to this world, a world already full of horrible, ugly actions? You don’t know me, but your actions have hurt me deeply. I don’t understand why you would want to do that. I don’t understand why you would want to deny love in this world, no matter what form it takes. I can’t imagine your motives. I can’t imagine your hate. But I do know what it feels like to be hated for no other reason than God made me different than you. And it’s a terrible feeling. I wish you never feel the hate you and yours have brought to me and my family and friends. Why would you do that to me? You don’t even know me. Why?
James in Montreal
Ok this is the second time i’ve heard this woman use the word “artist” as a carte-blanche to get out of responsibility for her shitty attitudes. Being on the gay blogs, I’m sure I’m not the only person who’s taken a few art history courses. Is it just me or does she have a freakin archaic way to view herself: the heroic artist, cutting through society’s norms… STFU lady. You work in a conventional field doing conventional portraiture with conventional methods making conventional money. The only thing (possibly?) unconventional about you is your subject matter, and you clearly have no respect for them, which is yet another convention of dickhead artists. Unfortunately for you, unlike Picasso or Gentileschi, you are a talentless hack, and time won’t forgive your prejudices. Enjoy your ignominy.
kevin
If her work was, at the most, “decorative” perhaps there would be SOME redeemable quality in it. But the subject matter doesn’t carry it with it any introspection or beauty, nor does it confront the viewer with any challenges.
I have a creepy clown painting hanging above my door that is more inspired than her work. I’ve seen Thomas Kincaid paintings that are more invocative.
Larry
Here’s my letter:
Dear Ms. Mullarkey,
I can’t help noticing the hypocrisy of your earning money with depictions of gay culture while donating that money to relegate gay people to second-class citizenship and the stupidity of your obstinate lack of remorse.
You have attempted to defend your actions by stating that “[R]egard for individual gay persons does not require assent to a politicized assault on bedrock social reality and the common good.” All you proved with that statement was a talent for eloquent appeal-to-tradition fallacies.
In fact, you are as benighted to matters of “social reality” and the “common good” as you are to the the gay people you portray. To date, scientific research has produced no indication that legalized same-sex marriage is detrimental to the overall institution of marriage or to society as a whole, and has actually indicated that it would be overwhelmingly beneficial. Massachusetts still has the country’s lowest divorce rate, after legalizing same-sex marriage in 2004; Arkansas banned it the same year and still has the highest divorce rate after Nevada, so same-sex marriage obviously will not destroy civilization as we know it. For sure, some people have attempted to show links between legalized same-sex marriage and such social ills as increased out-of-wedlock births, but these have been unscientific and, at best, confused coincidence with causation and correlation or attempted to assert the presence of coincidence where none exists.
You further demonstrated an ignorance of libel law when speaking to the New York Daily News. When the Daily News called you for a comment, you threatened to sue if it published the story. Perhaps you should be aware that your donation is public record — i.e. provably true — so the story is not libelous. As such, you are without legal recourse to challenge the reporter’s exposure of your shameless hypocrisy.
Any person who professes “regard for individual gay persons” while donating to strip them of a right clearly has no regard for, or understanding of, gay people whatsoever. What you mistake for regard is little more than a desire to blithely profit off of our community while brazenly working against it.
If you want to protect the common good and avoid embarrassment, then keep your money in your pocket and refrain from pontificating on matters that require a grasp of logic.
gayinsf
I sent her a friendly email…
gayinsf
Larry…great letter, thanks!!!!!!!!!!!
rick p
here is the parasites opinion on marriage debate .com
Monday, January 05, 2004
IS MARRIAGE A RIGHT? Maureen Mullarkey
[Maureen Mullarkey is a painter and critic in New York City.]
The discussion of marriage should never have been allowed onto the platform of rights. The argument over whether or not marriage is a right is skewered out of the starting gate. Marriage is an institution. Every institution has requirements for membership.
Homosexuals already have the freedom to marry. They choose not to exercise that freedom in order to live as they choose with whomever–or however many whoevers–they choose.
Engaging in the discourse of rights is, in itself, a half-surrender. Once the issue is phrased in the language of rights, we all know the eventual outcome. In a rights-besotted culture, the winner will always be the side that wants to extend rights, not limit them.
posted by Eve at 4:39 PM | link
Bruno
Wow she is so smart with them big words and all. We’ve been smacked down.
rick p
If you read her review of artist John Currin
http://www.artcritical.com/mullarkey/MMCurrin.htm
it seems she is hauntingly critiquing herself.
alan brickman
o course she did it on purpose..some artists always court controversy to get known….
Larry
@rick p: Wow, she’s even worse than Camille Paglia.
This is the best gem: “Homosexuals already have the freedom to marry. They choose not to exercise that freedom in order to live as they choose with whomever–or however many whoevers–they choose.”
So in one sentence, she manages to regurgitate the old gays-can-already-marry-just-not-people-of-the-same-sex argument and then insinuates that we don’t marry because we would rather sleep with anything with a pulse while also insinuating that we would view marriage to a member of the opposite sex as a viable alternative.
Camille Paglia is illogical, but this woman is just stupid.
Larry
@rick p: Wow, she’s even worse than Camille Paglia.
This is the best gem: “Homosexuals already have the freedom to marry. They choose not to exercise that freedom in order to live as they choose with whomever–or however many whoevers–they choose.”
So in one sentence, she manages to regurgitate the old gays-can-already-marry-just-not-people-of-the-same-sex argument and then insinuates that we don’t marry because we would rather sleep with anything with a pulse while also insinuating that we would view marriage to a member of the opposite sex as a viable alternative.
Camille Paglia is illogical and contrarian, but this woman is just stupid.
Distingué Traces
It’s supposed to be surprising that a bigot has a “some of my best friends” rationalization ready?
This is exactly the kind of person I would give no media attention whatsoever.
Buck
Well, I can’t imagine that her Bible Study Group friends are buying her tacky artwork. (Please, it’s garish and unoriginal and looks like old Mardi Gras posters.) So, I can only assume that her core buyers are us and our friends.
So, if we don’t buy her crap and if those who own her junk dump it on the market at once to drive down the prices she’ll have to go back to painting fruit with wine jugs. Maybe she can get a nice commission from Focus on the Family to paint pictures of “traditional” families like those poor folks in the mall.
getreal
@Russ: That was really moving I wish everyone who was against gay marriage could get this email from you I think it would change a lot of minds. Being hateful to hateful people does not change minds but I think appealing to people intelligence and sense of justice can. The thing that stood out most in your email to her is that you remained dignified. I hate to quote pop songs but “No matter what they take from me they can’t take away my dignity” I think it is important not to give anti-equality supporters the pleasure of turning us into vicious and angry people with no dignity like so many of them are.
Katz Paganstar
Here is my quaint lil’ letter to MM:
See you @ the show where WE, the poor creatures of your paintings will gather and revel in our sinful and improper love. How dare you use our community as a subject and then turn and declare our society as being morally corrupt and second class. Piss on your narrow minded views and preoccupations. If it were not for our flair and creativity, one of your more famous series’ would be nothing more than blank, dull canvas. Our light and beacon to the world is what attracted you to our flame. We will continue to love and cavort regardless of your or societies bigoted views concerning our FREEDOM to love on our terms as anyone else does. Leave judgement to the heavens and concern yourself with finding a new palette as beautiful as ours, for everyone knows that Homosexuals rule the World of Creativity, and that is whom you just fucked with! Yes, now you may fall over yourself in explanation, however please do not waste our time. Your pitiful views are aired and the world may now perceive you as you are……another Simpleton Hatemonger with a flailing career so inept that she must stir controversy to draw attention to an artful lie! Your art is nothing more than Black Face Theater and we shit on your doorstep! Thanks for bringing attention to a mediocre artist and revealing a mindset that deserves to be forgotten!!!
Sincerely-
Former Fan and Newest Adversary
Katz Paganstar
……oooops, there goes my dignity….????!!!!!
Tony
@Katz Paganstar:
Bravo!
getreal
@Katz Paganstar: You are right telling someone they are pathetic is going to make them relate to much more than telling your story with simplicity and respect.Well done sir!
getreal
@Katz Paganstar: You are right telling someone they are pathetic is going to make them relate to you much more than telling your story with simplicity and respect.Well done sir!
Richard Cortijo
Her work mocks us not celebrates us…we are a joke to her…DO NOT BUY HER WORK!
Charles J. Mueller
I just spent an hour typing my letter to Ms. Mullarkey. When I tried to send it, however, a window came up in my email program saying that the name is not recognized?
Perhaps she has taken down her email address to stem the tide of angry mail she is no doubt receiving? Anyway, here is the text of my email to her. Perhaps I can locate her snail mail address.
Dear Ms. Mullarkey.
With much emotional pain, distress and now anger, I just learned of your existence on this planet and I must say that we are not at all pleased.
You don’t know me from Adam but your bigoted diatribe on marriage.com on Monday, January 05, 2004 “IS MARRIAGE A RIGHT?” was a well-aimed punch direct to my solar plexus. I am so angered and outraged by your ignorant, uninformed and uncalled comments that I am prompted to return the favor with an email filled with the same contempt and vitriol you spewed toward the LGBT community in your commentary on marriage.com, but then, that would drag me down to your level and make me no better than you, wouldn’t it?
I read quite a number of emailing on Queerty.com that have been sent to in response to your unwarranted attack on people from you extract your living. Your unflattering caricature portrayal of us as Minstrels and Clowns apparently leaves you with insufficient satisfaction, so obviously you feel the necessity of degrading us even further by promoting your unfounded notions that we are second-class citizens, totally unworthy of the same privileges and rights that you have always enjoyed as your birth-right.
Let us take your Yes on Proposition 8 sounding position apart, sentence for sentence and examine them in the cold, harsh light of reality, shall we?
“The discussion of marriage should never have been allowed onto the platform of rights.” – Oh really, now? We are living in a totalitarian state with you as omnipotent Dictator, are we? Last I heard, this is still a democracy that allows free and open debate on any topic, not just the ones you deem acceptable to debate.
“The argument over whether or not marriage is a right is skewered out of the starting gate. ” – Only from your 52% point of view. 48% of the Californians who voted on November 4th, obviously did not agree with your point of view and expressed it at the polls. The tide of public opinion if obviously changing from where it was a few years ago. You and your marginalizing of minority rights thoughts are not backed by the entirety of the voting populace. When this comes up for a popular vote again, and it will if this horrible trashing of the American Constitution is not overturned by the California Supreme Court, you and your kind will surely lose next time around. Count on it.
“Marriage is an institution.” – Only by proclamation of the Roman Catholic Church who elbowed their way into the public ceremony during the seventh century. Before that, it was a secular institution and it would you do well to know that there were times when homosexual relationships were acknowledge as valid and marriage between citizens of same sex was allowed. Copious documentation exists in our libraries to substantiate these facts. Look into it some rainy Sunday afternoon, after you’ve attended Church Services.
“Every institution has requirements for membership.” – Yup. The Klu Klux Klan required that you wear a white hood over your head while burning crosses on people’s front lawns. The International Order of Loyal Raccoons required Ralph Kramden and Ed Norton to wear raccoon hats to their meetings. The Bible requires that parents of children who do not listen to or do as they are told, must be stoned to death. What’s your point, Ma’am? Are any of these “requirements” being followed or being carried out in the 21st Century? Times change, obviously…and so do “requirements” for membership…in anything.
“Homosexuals already have the freedom to marry.” – Umm…only if they marry a person of the opposite sex, which means that a LGBT person must lie to one’s true self, live in denial and in the process, screw-up the lives of many innocent people, not to mention screwing up their own lives. No a viable option, lady. We’ll pass on that one.
“They choose not to exercise that freedom in order to live as they choose with whomever–or however many whoevers–they choose.” – Wow. You say it like it is a bad thing. God forbid that human beings should be allowed to love (and marry) whom they choose. Who appointed you as Grand Poobah over who may and may not marry? That’s a might high-horse you’re sitting on, Mrs. Mullarkey.
“Engaging in the discourse of rights is, in itself, a half-surrender.” – Now that comment is a real mind-bender. Obviously, you do not believe in democratic process. Ever given any thought to moving to Iran, Iraq or perhaps Afghanistan. You will, of course be required to wear a Burkha but that is not a bad thing. It will cover the ugliness of your dislike of gay people and a foul mouth that only knows hot to utter hatred and vitriol.
“Once the issue is phrased in the language of rights, we all know the eventual outcome.” – One would hope that the outcome would be a land where everyone had equality, dignity and the right to live their lives as they see fit. Judging from the idiocy of this particular comment you vomited out of your mouth, those concepts must upset the shit out of you, eh what?
“In a rights-besotted culture, the winner will always be the side that wants to extend rights, not limit them.” – Oh my. The piéce de resistance. The grand-daddy of all your senseless, arcane and disgusting comments.
“Rights-besotted”. Now that sounds like something straight out of Mein Kampf. Nazi much, so you? You speak of rights as if they are a curse upon mankind.
Shall we hold a referendum on your right to vote as a woman?
Shall we put together a new Proposition to rescind the rights of blacks?
Shall we put interracial marriage up to a popular vote?
Shall we vote on whether ugly women like you should be required to wear a Scold’s Bridle in public for having too loose a tongue in a man’s world, as was required by the Catholic Church during the Medievil Ages? It sounds to me as if you would be exceedingly joyful at the idea of returning to the middle ages and all of the horrible sadistic suffering that was being inflicted on mankind by the Catholic Church during that period…one of which was publicly burning “faggots” at the stake, when they weren’t busy torturing them in the dungeons.
If we could legally bring back some of the delightful, sadistic toys of that era, would be your fave, Ma’am?
The rack?
The Iron Maiden?
The bone crusher?
The brazier and red-hot poker?
I am terribly tempted to say that all of your foregoing comments are just a lot of Mullarkey, but clearly, this is not a joking matter.
You and people with like-minded thoughts are are very, very dangerous people. Y’all represent a clear and present danger and consistent threat to the American dream of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. People like would extinguish the flame of freedom without a second thought.
We are watching and listening very closely and each and every time people like you hawk-up your particular brand of religiously inspired bigotry, hatred and verbal abuse, we will expose you for the disingenuous liars and cretins that you have proven yourselves to be.
Satin, if he does in deed exist, must be licking his chops while he awaits your tortured soul to be delivered on the end of his pitch-fork to be thrust into your eternal hell-fires and brimstone for an eternity of suffering.
I am certain that you would wish nothing less for members of the GLBT community and I do want you to know that I am an Equal Opportunity Advocate.
Sincerely,
Charles J. Mueller
Charles J. Mueller
Ooookay…just discovered why my email would not send. There is a dot after com in Japhy’s intro. When I removed it, the email flew out the window, as if by magic and is winging it’s way through the ether to her mailbox. Hope it singes her hair a little. lol
All’s well, that ends well. – William Shakespeare (who had a hell of a lot more to say of value than this dumb biatch).
coh4 key
Your web site is definately worthy of a bookmark, thank you!