Issue Number 1006 | Dynamic Duo | Advocate.com Dynamic Duo  |  | Advocate.com

||  SPECTATOR  ||
Dynamic Duo
With a retrospective currently at the de Young Museum in San Francisco and a tour slated for later this year, the controversial art team Gilbert and George are about to remind America of the beauty of bad taste.
By Regina Marler
From The Advocate  April 22, 2008
Dynamic Duo

Polite, well-spoken gentlemen, Gilbert and George paraded dirty graffiti, pricks, profanity, and splashes of semen before a reluctant art world during the past 40 years. In 1969 they designed a preemptive strike on their critics titled George the Cunt and Gilbert the Shit. In the 1980s they began a series of images centered on their own body fluids. A British institution -- and a thorn in the side of conservatives -- the duo favors series titles like “Cunt Scum” while publicly lamenting that they can’t find a good tailor these days.

Since graduating from art school and striking out on their own as “living sculptures” in the late 1960s, Gilbert and George have led an ordered existence that observers find creepy and delicious. They’re rarely seen alone. They dress almost identically in suit and tie. They take their meals at the same local restaurants every day. Their house near Brick Lane in London’s East End is famously without a kitchen. Back in 1967 when they moved in, they named the house Art for All. When they found graffiti outside that said GILBERT AND GEORGE ARE WANKERS AND TOSSERS, George responded to a journalist, “Well, we are. We were rather flattered by that. We photographed it to include in our work.”

GINK, 2006 (COURTESY OF APERTURE/TATE) | ADVOCATE.COM
GINK: Gilbert & George, from "Gilbert & George: The Complete Pictures, 1971-2005"

Last year, despite opposition -- and lack of a corporate sponsor -- the Tate Modern hosted Gilbert and George’s largest retrospective. A smaller version of that show is now at the de Young Museum in San Francisco and will travel to Milwaukee and Brooklyn, N.Y., later this year. I walked through the de Young exhibition with the artists on the day before it opened to the public. George’s tie sported large black ants, while Gilbert’s ants were magenta. They wore the same quiet suit, although George’s was tan and Gilbert’s was gray.

Inevitably, we gravitated toward The Penis (1978). A large multipanel photographic piece (like most of their mature work), it features the artists flanked by vague images of tree branches above a street scrawl of a cock ejaculating into a waiting mouth. The graffiti artist had added the unnecessary caption “Suck.”

Images courtesy Aperture/Tate.

Reader Comments

These comments are reproduced as written by visitors to this Web site. They have not been edited for content, grammar, or spelling. The viewpoints appearing here are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or views of advocate.com, The Advocate, or its affiliates.

Be the first to comment on this story.

Back to top

Submit a comment for this story:

*Type your comment here (Required, 1000 characters max.):

*Name (Required): 

*Hometown (Required): 

*E-mail address: (Required, but will not be displayed)

Is this comment for publication? 
Yes   No

Daytime phone number: (Required for print publication only and will not be displayed)

Please enter the words you see in the box, in order and separated by a space. Doing so helps prevent automated programs from abusing this service.

  

If you would like to submit a comment for posting, please fill out the form above. 

All comments submitted via this form are subject to posting or publication. (To send a private letter to an Advocate editor or writer, please use the e-mail button at the top of the page, or use snail mail.) If you would like your comment considered for publication in The Advocate magazine, please include your full name, your city of residence, and a phone number where you can be reached during business hours so that we can confirm your identity. Your e-mail address and telephone number are strictly confidential and will not be shared or used for any purpose other than to contact you about your comment.

Comments that do not concern specific articles in The Advocate or on Advocate.com will not be posted or published. See the Contact page for sending comments for reasons other than responding to Advocate editorial and news stories.

Please note that comments sent by fax or snail mail are unlikely to be posted, although they will be considered for publication along with all letters received via e-mail or via this Web page. Comments that chiefly concern Advocate.com content will be considered for posting only on the Web site. The Advocate reserves the right to edit submitted comments for grammar, spelling, obscenities, or libel; we will, however, do our best to preserve the original comment's style and intent. Comments considered for publication in The Advocate magazine may also be edited for length.