Gustave Caillebotte: Painting MEN, goddammit!

"Man Drying His Leg"

        If you read this stuff and think, "Man, that Steinberg, he's a genius. He knows everything!" I would like, right here and now, to disabuse you of that notion. I am now, and have always been, a flawed, limited man, blundering about his business in a shambolic fashion, filing oddball reports in order to make a sort of living. I've never pretended to be anything else.

    And yet, some people must consider me the all-seeing-eye. Any omission must be a deliberate part of my master plan, such as failing to address a certain controversy related to the Caillebotte show mentioned in Monday's column. 

     "You left out the whole issue of the Art Institute changing the name of the exhibit from its name at the other two institutions hosting the exhibit," writes John S. "Seems the Art Institute whitewashed the issue of Caillebotte’s being gay. [At] Musee d'Orsay and Getty museums, it’s titled 'Painting Men' That’s the major story here and you missed it completely. Ask the Art Institute why they changed the title of the exhibition?"

     No need to quiz the Art Institute as to their motives, as the Trib already did that in a comprehensive story on the issue last week, the spark that, I assume, ignited John's outrage. The museum said that a) there's a lot of pictures of other subjects besides men in the exhibit and b) "Painting His World" tested better.

     I missed that story, so didn't know about the controversy. Had I known, I still would have not joined in the chorus of condemnation over the name change. To be honest, I considered slicing the top of my story, the part about Caillebotte, off  — focusing entirely on Raqib Shaw's "Paradise Lost," the painting taking up the last two-thirds of the column. Ignoring Caillebotte would give me more room to stretch my legs.

     But I liked the bit about my never before considering what Caillebotte had painted beyond "Paris Street; Rainy Day." Part of my comic, ostensibly befuddled, in-print persona that happens to correspond exactly with my not-all-that-funny, actually befuddled, real life persona. 

     The Trib story said the change "has led some to accuse the Art Institute of queer erasure."

     I bet it did. I had fancied that the silver lining of the Trump monstrosity was that finely-tuned liberal sensitivities might not be quite so hair trigger, given the general scuppering of democracy, the free press, personal bodily autonomy, LGBTQ rights, and such.  I'm amazed some people have the psychic energy to parse such fine points. They changed the exhibit title? Oh, the humanity...

     I mean, the Art Institute did put on the show, did they not? And if their intention was to obscure gayness, they did a pretty poor job of it. Any reasonable intelligent person, such as myself, spending a moderate amount of time strolling the exhibit, as I did, would come away with the impression that Caillebotte was probably gay — it's not like he left a statement — and, freed by his family wealth, felt no disinclination about reflecting that perspective, at least when it came to celebrating men with a gaze that mostly, then and now, was reserved for women.

     Had I known about the issue, I might have given it a nod, to show that I was in the loop. That not being the case, I'm not interested in joining the mob beating up a fine Chicago institution for not perfectly celebrating an often neglected segment of the population. 

     This is a strange cultural moment — I guess they all are. But in 2025, while the government struggles to return to the 1950s, high culture institutions such as museums and theater companies fall to angels-dancing-on-a-pin debates over fine points of inclusions. They seem to think we're in the 2050s, or at least often get ahead of their skis, regarding the public they ostensibly serve. That the Art Institute might not have checked the right box, in this instance, well, that is their brand, going for the artistic over the political. Institutions, like people, have a right to be who they are.