It's true that I do tend to leap to defense. (I was buried proudly in the NYTimes magazine comments section somewhere, once upon a time.) Still, I like to think I'd be totally down with reasonable criticism of my friends and peers. That said, I don't think I'm implying a judgment when I read:

"Yet everything he does—the tireless performing, the zines dropped at gay bars and punk clubs all over the city, the relentless self-exposure—leads you to believe that Max Steele wants, needs, to be discovered."

Maybe commenter kylebrod is right that fast-food statements like this might turn the reader's judgments against Zachary himself, as he informs us what Max's life "leads us to believe," without, as it were, leaving it up to us to decide. But what bothers me most about that sentence is the inability to imagine that a struggling artist promotes himself because he actually cares about his art.

I don't need everyone in the world to applaud all struggling artists. But I am concerned about this growing tendency to condescend to us – to assume that all we're are just dicking around, to assume that we're all just attention whores, to assume that our lifestyle is silly. Or, to focus on our lifestyle (as opposed to our work) in the first place.

Just because readers might be able to see through Zachary's attitude doesn't mean his attitude shouldn't be contested. Because if you were going to start reading this as a piece about Zachary, rather than a piece about Max, you could start assuming all sorts of potential jealousies, resentments, etc, that I would never dream of assuming in any kind of public forum like the internet obviously.

Hm. Your comment is making me think, "What if the WHOLE WORLD was the Time Out New York Queer Section?" I'll have to think on that!

xoxo
dan

i think max is pretty savvy about the reactions he'll get to things like this, and he wouldn't do them if it wasn't all part of the point.

We don't need an article about joe the plumber, because supposedly we the readers ARE joe the plumber or jack the retail sales associate, or whatever queer variations you spin. Even if max IS joe the plumber. Even if NONE of us are joe the plumber, and all of us are Max Steele. This is so blog commentalicious, but I hope this is at least getting at what I mean.

Max is bubbly, brilliant, fun and sexy. He's a disciplined artist, and someone who is very self-aware about how he'd like sexuality to be a part of his life and work. I think it's totally admirable, and I enjoyed reading this particular journalist's take on max. I'd probably write a different story, because i would totally sleep on the couch. I'd hold out for what would inevitably be good brunch in the a.m.

But anyone who knows Max knows that he is actually tremendously dedicated to his work. And anyone familiar with his work knows that this dedication consistently pays off. His solo theater performances are moving and hilarious. His songs are twisted and gnarly and exciting. His "Scorcher" zines are raw, artful, psychedelic and, frankly, really really hot.

Even his work as a go-go boy merits more serious attention than what we've read here. After all, how insane is it that a boy as thin and conventionally attractive as Max can still be seen as an "unsuitable" object of lust by so many bar-goers? Patrons often call him "fat," and have indeed complained to the management, not about his dancing style, but about the shape of his body. (As you can see above, THIS IS A THIN, CUTE PERSON WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.) What does that say about our expectations for male beauty? What does that say about gay body culture? Max's go-go dancing seems less about narcissism and more about intervention. He talks about go-going like an art project because that's exactly what it is.

I've collaborated with Max on theater and music pieces, consistently, for the past three years, and I can say, enthusiastically, that Max Steele is one of the most dedicated and powerful artistic presences I know.

But, while I may be a friend and a colleague, it is mostly as a FAN that I object to this piece. If you don't like Max's work, then critique his work on its own merits. If you don't like his life, then loosen up. I don't know why Zachary seems so eager to belittle Max's existence. I don't understand what point he is trying to make.

I hope that, in the future, people who write about Max Steele can see his sexuality, his sexiness, and his sexual habits as simply a single component in the larger picture of his work, rather than as a seedy distraction from the real focus of his life.

Also, "witchcraft" is art, now?