Some of the responses by those who believe it does not matter whether
Arrau or any artist or public figure was gay are utterly disingeneous.
Why the hell would any of us read biographies, then? If a man or woman
were only to be judged on the basis of his or her works, there would
be no need to explore his or her background either to perhaps gain a
greater appreciation of said works or merely for curiosity's sake,
which is a perfectly valid reason to want to know more about someone
one admires (or detests). Does it help us understand Mozart's music
any better to know that he was fond of using scatological references
in his letters? Not at all, I don't think, and yet his unedited
letters were finally published only a few years ago and just about
everyone agreed that was a good thing, even if they were deffinitely
not meant for public consumption. We pry into the private lives of
others constantly, ESPECIALLY if they are famous and they interest us
personally.
I had heard about Arrau being arrested in Australia, but never knew
the particulars of his "indecent" act. And I do think that the fact of
his homosexuality - like Tchaikovsky's and Schubert's - illuminate
aspects of his artistry. He was wont to emphasize the latent eroticism
in certain works - more than other pianists - and talked unabashedly
about it. Interesting to know whether the eroticism he underlined grew
out of a homosexual or heterosexual conception of it (I hope no one
proposes that there is no difference between the two). Beyond that, I
think the "flambouyance" of some of his interpretations, as another
poster said, could not have been conceived by a heterosexual male.
Now, to suggest that there is no difference in thinking and feeling
and in the way we relate to the world and to each other based on our
sexual preferences is to be profoundly naive and politically correct,
while betraying an utter ignorance of even the most basic Freudian
insights into human nature and sexuality.
I am not gay, though often I have wished I were. I have never been
physically attracted to other men, even if I have found some men
incredibly intellectually and emotionally attractive. I cannot get
past my repugnance for the male physique, unfortunately, and I am
obsessed by the female form. In all other ways, however, I find myself
more often empathizing with homosexual than with heterosexual men,
particularly as the former do not have "macho" emotional inhibitions
that prevent many heterosexual men from having more fulfilling
friendships with other men, beyond merely going to the ballgame and
sitting around the porch drinking beer and talking about pussy.
And I do very much think one's sexuality should be clear to others who
may stand to be affected by it. In the last couple of years alone, I
have been confronted with three otherwise married men (with children)
with whom I established close friendships who went on to express their
desire to have sexual relations with me. I would have been flattered
were it not for the fact that it became evident that part of the
reason they engaged in a friendship with me to begin with was because
of said desires. Moreover, because they could apparently easily switch
between male and female partners, they projected such "sexual
flexibility", if you will, onto others and thought every man was a
blow job away from being "converted," a stance which, when it is
forcefully proposed, can be not only annoying but offensive and
profoundly discomfitting, destroying an otherwise beautiful friendship
in the process. Finally, none of these men's respective wives and
children had any idea about their sexuality, which made all of them
philanderers and liars. I think that says a lot about a person's
character and to what extent you may trust them. I need not mention a
scumbag like McGreevy, former governor of New Jersey, to illustrate my
point. I do think closeted homosexuals are an inherently devious lot,
by necessity, which in terms of character, is a defining
characteristic, to say the least.