In its wisdom, the Tate Gallery in St Ives has decided that a pioneering female artist of the early 20th century, Marlow Moss, may not have been a woman after all.
Born in London and later living in Paris and Cornwall, Moss was an artistic trailblazer and somewhat of a heroine to me.
She made beautiful, pure geometric paintings inspired by the Dutch painter Piet Mondrian and then, later, minimalist sculptures.
Moss had also “come out” as a lesbian at a time when no one had heard of gay liberation and such a choice was considered not only eccentric but shameful.
Moss, a striking figure who strode through Newlyn’s fishing harbor in the 1950s, wore menswear, as many lesbians have always done. Born plain old Marjorie, she had changed her name to the more exotic Marlow.
KATHLEEN STOCK: The Tate Gallery in St Ives has decided that a pioneering female artist of the early 20th century, Marlow Moss (pictured), may not have been a woman after all
But these facts seem to have led the Tate’s trustees to think she might be ripe for retrospective – and posthumous – ‘transition’.
Today, Marlow Moss can be seen in an exhibition at the Tate called Queer Cornwall in which the labels referring to her use gender-neutral pronouns. There is no trace of ‘she’.
A page on the Tate website speculates that: “If Marlow were alive today, the artist would identify as transgender, meaning your gender is different from the gender the doctors or midwives assumed you were when you were born, or non-binary, meaning that neither the word “boy” nor “girl” are a good fit for you.”
This means that because she liked women, dressed like a man and gave herself an androgynous name, she might have been transgender and not a woman at all.
This is anachronistic nonsense and an insult to the memory of a great artist who lived courageously and unconventionally.
And, of course, it’s yet another disturbing concession to an unfortunately fashionable orthodoxy that denies the biological reality of sex and tries to give away women’s rights.
A prestigious art institution like the Tate must of course facilitate creativity. But being creative with facts about the life of a great female artist like Marlow Moss is something else entirely.
This is giving in to activists campaigning for self-identification who try to suppress any discussion of their radical plans, let alone anyone disagreeing.
White, black and red, oil on canvas by Marlow Moss, painted in 1950
And institutions like the Tate have, in fact, allowed themselves to become servile instruments for coercive and narrow-minded lobby groups.
If this sounds all too familiar, there are two more aspects of particular concern.
The first is the treatment of lesbians. My own experience is well known: I was bullied out of my job as a philosophy professor at the University of Sussex for insisting on saying in plain terms that human biology matters.
I think allowing men to “identify” themselves as women – based on what they say is going on in their own heads – is trampled at the expense of basic protection and fairness.
How irritating it is that contemporary art criticism tries to make the sexual identity of great artists the most interesting thing about them.
Why not just focus on the art?
Around the turn of the 21st century, the art world became captivated by the supposed glamor of ‘strangeness’ and it has never recovered.
Like Moss, every former major female performer with sapphic leanings is now being rebranded as “LGBTQIA+” (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning, intersex, asexual and more) – her individuality and talent disappearing into a meaningless alphabet soup.
Composition yellow blue black red and white, oil on canvas by Marlow Moss, c.1956-57
She is reduced to an eccentric but harmless cardboard cutout that supports current fashionable fantasies about people changing gender.
The fact that the Tate describes Marlow Moss as ‘Marlow’ says it all. Imagine a serious gallery referring to Picasso as ‘Pablo’ – you can’t. It’s demeaning and childish.
As a lesbian, I enjoy reading about great writers and artists of history who happened to love other women. Lesbians like these kicked against tradition and went their own way, living rich and courageous. But more important than anything to them was the art they lived for.
These days it’s like a lot of people want to be queer. In practice, however, I think it has become a totally empty word.
Artists are increasingly explaining their pronouns. Gallery brochures repeat nonsensical phrases dictated at large from the favorite style guide of trans campaign group Stonewall. It’s like they joined a cult.
Hundreds of Arts Council grants—many of which are taxpayer-funded—go to projects with “queer” in the name, further encouraging others to apply in the same way.
It has become a mind-numbing racket that mocks equality – but, just as important, it produces boring and predictable work that is only of interest to virtue givers.
My second concern is the timid conformity of the arts establishment. Why does everyone seem to have the same ideas about gender? Where is the radical freedom of thought on which art thrives?
KATHLEEN STOCK: The fact that the Tate (pictured) describes Marlow Moss as ‘Marlow’ says it all. Imagine a serious gallery referring to Picasso as ‘Pablo’ – you can’t. It’s demeaning and childish
As I write this, an employment tribunal is hearing a complaint against the Arts Council from a former senior employee who argues that sex should not be confused with gender identity.
She claims she was treated as a “threat” who had to be “re-educated” because of her views.
It seems that the people who run the art have forgotten what they are for.
It is not their job to parrot the views of an influential section of society, no matter how well-meaning.
A vibrant artistic culture accessible to all depends on the protection of freedom of thought. Art should open the debate, not close it.
We are already seeing the suffocating and dangerous effects of groupthink on girls and young women, afraid of stepping out of line and saying the wrong thing
And many young women deny their gender, calling themselves male or non-binary. I am not surprised that research shows that a large number of them are lesbians.
Some of them receive irrevocable drug and surgical treatments based on such feelings, to remove or hide female body parts that they are ashamed or disgusted with. This will make them potentially lifelong medical patients over time.
It is guaranteed that some will regret it and unfortunately many already have.
Lesbians are facing a moment of crisis in 21st century Britain. They may come first in LGBTQIA+, but they seem to come last in just about everything else.
Meanwhile, according to several influential trans campaigners, people who were born male and may not have undergone any medical or surgical procedures can also be considered “lesbians.”
Outrageously – and almost unbelievably – it allows young lesbians to be pressured to sleep with ‘lesbian’ men or be judged as ‘transphobic’.
It’s heartbreaking that we’ve come this far.
With campaigner Julie Bindel, a regular contributor to The Mail on Sunday, I recently founded The Lesbian Project – an organization that champions their interests.
We want to remind the world who lesbians really are: a diverse group of women who love women, of all political persuasions and points of view, and who deserve their own story rather than being forced into someone else’s.
I like to think Marlow Moss would be proud of us.