Error during command authentication.

I've hesitated to email the list about the GLIRT situation at the risk of perpetuating the drama, so to speak, but I think at this point it is important to point out a couple of things, especially since I was Chair of GLIRT prior to Miguel and am in support of dissolving GLIRT.

 

** As has been pointed out by Sherman initially, there is no longer official sponsorship of panel sessions by round tables, etc. at conferences, so that specific purpose for existence is no longer necessary.  And to demonstrate that this isn't even necessary, consider "The Queer Art World" panel session Sherman & I co-moderated at the New York City ARLIS/NA conference.  We came up with the proposal and the panel session without anything having to do with GLIRT; queer content had nothing to do with the round table.  Because GLIRT sponsored important sessions in the past does not imply that there is a necessity for it to still exist as it currently does when the group no longer sponsors sessions.

** The GLIRT mailing list and the web site were wonderful things in the past, but has already been noted, both have gone to the wayside.  The list was dissolved at a committee meeting chaired by me for two very practical purposes: (1) Eric Schwab (the moderator, who did an excellent job as list manager) was leaving Cornell where it was hosted; and (2) there were hardly any postings anymore, and those that were business-related had to get posted to ARLIS-L anyway.  In my year as Chair of GLIRT, I think there were maybe a dozen messages posted to that list (not counting "me too" replies).  As for the web site, it wound up that for various reasons it died out and did not get started up again.  It is perhaps lamentable, but can anyone in ARLIS/NA really claim that since it's been down (for 3+ years now!) that we've missed it for practical work-related purposes?  It may have been beneficial when it started, but I hesitate to think that even a new version would or could supplant other queer-related web sites out there.  Consider also that I could get no one to volunteer to be webmaster, which brings up another point...

** Getting people to volunteer to chair the round table itself was problematic.  After fruitless attempts to email for volunteers and to ask for volunteers at the business meeting, I had to contact Miguel specifically to ask him to take over, and he agreed.  This does NOT imply that people are not committed to queer-themed art library issues or do not have an interest in GLIRT.  Rather, to me, it implies that everybody is overworked and doesn't have time to devote themselves to "yet another committee," especially when/if they are involved with other ARLIS/NA committees, divisions, and chapters. 

 

In the best interests of ARLIS/NA (which has attempted to streamline things over the past couple of years), it only makes sense to me that GLIRT can be dissolved.  No one said it was going to be a popular decision.  And no one even remotely implied that queer-themed sessions and/or discussions would not take place in ARLIS/NA ever again.  I mean, come on, let's face it -- ARLIS/NA has some of the most active gay/lesbian-related members than most other organizations!  And if queer-themed sessions/discussions do fall to the wayside, I suspect it will be because members with an interest in these areas will have turned away, not because the society will have rejected them.  And I also see no reason why former GLIRT-related members could not consider reorganizing as a social or discussion group like we have seen so many others pop up in the past couple of years of ARLIS/NA's history, without having the added worry of filing an annual report, finding a chair, etc.

 

I'd like to also point people's attentions to the Queer Caucus for Art, an affiliated organization of the College Art Association.  Sherman and I are both members, and we have both played active roles in that organization as well (Sherman does the newsletter!).  The QCA is in fact much more organized than GLIRT ever has been, in my mind.  The recent "InterseXions" conference in NYC is an amazing example and demonstrated to me how international gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender artists, art historians, gallery owners, and librarians can all come together and exchange information in a way that perhaps as librarians/visual resource curators in a small library organiation we often can't see beyond our own bookshelves/databases.  And their listserv, though not heavily congested, does get more email than the GLIRT list ever did.  Those interested in preserving GLIRT might consider diverting their attentions towards the QCA and attempt to find a way to make that organization an affiliated society of ARLIS/NA.

 

Roberto C. Ferrari