i-xxii Front matter.qxd - Brandeis Institutional Repository

124 / The New York Art Networkfound in Warhol’s “Boy” drawings from c. 1957, and found as well in the motorcyclemacho of Tom of Finland’s drawings.The 1970 paintings of Jackie Curtis and Rita Red (ƒg. 118) and David Bourdonand Gregory Battcock, (ƒg. 119) are her earliest portraits of “gay” couples.All were players in Warhol ƒlms and participants in life at the Factory. The formerwere two of Warhol’s Superstars, the latter were important contemporarycritics. Neel identiƒes her sitters by name only, and in the former portrait, thenaive viewer would automatically categorize the sitter on the left, in jeans anda t-shirt, as male, “Jackie Curtis,” and the one on the right, in the 1940s dresswith the „aming hair, as the female, Rita Red, whereas in fact the opposite istrue. Initially, then, their masquerade succeeds. Like most transvestites, however,the female is dressed to mimic rather than duplicate male-female dresscodes. 44The challenge for Neel was to make those differences recognizable, whichshe does by reproducing the dominant-subservient convention of male to female.Cocker-spaniel like, Red nuzzles against Curtis, whose sweeping lateralkick assures that the dog will heel. “Her” aggressive self-presentation contrastswith Red’s self-effacing gentleness. Moreover, Curtis’s stiffened, angular bodyand bony face lack any “feminine” sensuality (compared, for instance, withMalanga’s or Kuyer’s portrayal). Thus, “Rita Red,” bearing only the nicknamebestowed by Jackie, plays a female while retaining his male dress; Jackie, onthe other hand, adopts female dress but retains his male position. The coupleis joined at the feet, where Red’s hush puppy meets Curtis’s pump, with hisphallically protruding toe. Both shoes would ƒt either foot, just as Jackie’sname could be either male or female. Because, without fuller information, theviewer is left in doubt about which name and which gender to assign to whichperson, traditional categories are effectively frustrated. We are not permitted toidentify either sitter as male or female, but only to peruse an intermediate wayof being, “the transvestite,” which in the androgynous Red’s case need not entailcross-dressing. Neither of the pair is able to establish the so nearly perfectan ambiguity between male and female as Warhol, when dressed as a bothand,while retaining his media image (Christopher Makos, Andy Warhol,1987, ƒg. 120). Such “performance-photographs” would establish a precedentfor contemporary cross-dressing artists such as Ru Paul. The couple does epitomize,nonetheless, the castoffs drawn to Warhol in hope of becoming stars.They are the raw material from which Warhol forged a postmodern, gay art.In David Bourdon and Gregory Battcock, Neel uses their opposing dress,staid business suit vs. colorful underwear, to suggest that for gay men, as well asfor heterosexual women, sexual identity may be a matter of masquerade. 45Bourdon, who played a leather-clad living bedpost in Warhol’s unƒnished