á
NOTES
á
INTRODUCTION
1 ‘‘Winston Leyland interviews John Giorno,’’ in Leyland, Gay Sunshine Inter-
views, 1:131–162. All the following citations from this source will be abbrevi-
ated as G and appear in the text.
2 John Giorno, ‘‘Vitamin G.’’
3 Perhaps foremost among those studies which have attempted to reclaim gos-
sip as socially productive is Goodman and Ben-Ze’ev, Good Gossip. See also
Salamensky, Talk,Talk,Talk, and Spacks, Gossip, for related perspectives from
the fields of cultural studies and literary studies respectively. Additional stud-
ies from the social sciences and social history include Bergmann, Discreet In-
discretions: The Social Organisation of Gossip; Dunbar, Grooming, Gossip and
the Evolution of Language; Rosnow and Fine, Rumorand Gossip; and Tebbutt,
Women’s Talk?
4 This does not mean, however, that my book will be free from its own campi-
ness. Indeed, as we shall see, parts of the book deliberately set out to address
the question of what it might mean to let loose the spirit of camp in the art
historical archive.
5 EventhoughinMay2004aBoston-baseddistrictjudgethrewoutacaseclaim-
ing defamation for being wrongly identified as gay, it is still unclear whether
other judges in other states—particularly those with anti–same-sex sodomy
laws—would conclude in such a liberal fashion with similar cases. For more
on this see Jay Blotcher, ‘‘Gay Libelous no more?’’ on the Advocate’s Web site,
visited on November 5, 2004, printout on file with author. For a summary of
the issues facing art historians wishing to write about homosexuality in art
history, see Martin Duberman, ‘‘Is There Room for Privacy on the Canvas?’’
6 This is perhaps most evident in gay scholars’ own worries about how others
Previous Page Next Page