| An American cultural theorist has recently argued that the most advantageous
position from which to define gay identity is that of shame. Shame, he argues,
is a powerful experience common to the group and, furthermore, an experience from
which many important life-lessons can be drawn. Personally, I think shamelessness
is a better starting point. Let's just say what the heck and get on with it.
Sometimes it's hard to tell Matthias Hermann and his cock apart. He's so cock-like,
pert and amusing. And his cock acts just like a silly guy in a hotel room. The
two of them seem to have a wonderful time together. It's rare to see such shamelessness.
What an instructive performance! In America, the trick of imagining your colleagues
naked is a strategy for board room dominance. We find nudity to be so absurd that
it virtually nullifies existence. Without clothes we are nothing. Naked with his
cock, Matthias Hermann comes alive. His cock is like a little battery that keeps
his arms flapping and legs kicking. As long as that tube is stiff, all's well
in hotel room 617.
I recently saw a performance off-Broadway titled "Puppetry of the Penis."
It was a stand-up comedy revue consisting of two Australian fellows who manipulated
their cocks and balls into forms resembling everything from a hamburger to a flying
squirrel. Oddly, they never acknowledged that any of the men in the audience might
find their antics-like twirling their members in the manner of helicopter blades-to
be anything more than simply grotesque. The other strange thing about their show
was the total absence of a mise-en-scene. A bare stage and two spot-lit cocks.
Mathias Hermann, in contrast, is nothing if not alluring and his work is frankly
addressed to the gaze of fellow cock-holders. This is what gives his photographs
the flavor of an inside joke. As for the mise-en-scene, Hermann and his cock are
true decorators and fashion whores. It is the rare-if beguiling-image which features
only his stout, undressed prong. So, we have the ultimate self-exposure combined
with a theatrical flair for dissimulation. Hermann's photos present cock as character.
Then there's Hermann's ass. Another willing playmate. Truly like the flip-side
of a coin, Hermann's double-cheeked tuchas has the same semiotic value as his
stiff dick. A sex part on parade. Still, perhaps because it less resembles the
human figure, his ass is relegated to a supporting role, as the corps de ballet
is to the prima ballerina. Still, its performances are not incidental. Can we
even say that Hermann himself is Janus-headed? That his ass and his face are two
expressions of the same mind? When he turns around, after all, we do not feel
as if we are being ignored. Hermann's face throughout bears the bemused yet slightly
jaded look of a babysitter blandly suffering the tortures of his ill-mannered
young charges. His own body a doll, a plaything, dressed and posed. Not without
a certain pleasure and even thrill, but also with the knowledge that these are
moments stolen from the norm. Fraught with reality but not to be brought up when
the parents come home.
Finally, what of Hermann's texts, found bits of opinion and advice. These laconic
incursions into the wordless zone of play take their place among other signs,
confident and yet not wholly believable. For some, I imagine they offer relief,
deletable little homilies like the kind of thing you might find at the check-out
stand of a supermarket or send to a friend in the form of a greeting card. My
grandmother and my boyfriend enjoy things like this. They can be the reason we
laugh.
Lawrence Rinder
Published in Hotel 2001 |