notes

One of the trade publications I peruse- online, of course- this morning touted the launch of a new website providing support for those of us who post their items for sale on a variety of selling platforms. What this new support service offers is the ability to post one place- their own site- which posts can then be simultaneously posted on whatever other sales platforms where the dealer happens to maintain a virtual storefront. This ability, the support site claims, removes from the dealer their biggest contemporary hassle, keeping their inventory listings consistent across numerous websites.

So that you know, I long ago gave up wearing three cornered hats, and it has been years since I wrote with a quill pen dipped in ink made from oak galls and soot. By this I mean that I do operate in the current age, am able to not only turn on my desk top, lap top, and hand held device, and not only receive information therefrom, but also to send out information to various and sundry. And this includes fielding the occasional inquiry from a punter, and eventually accomplishing the sale of an item or two of my stock in trade.

I have to say, the least hassle I have is to maintain an online record of my inventory offerings. Since inception, Chappell & McCullar has maintained a website, and cottoned on to the fact that keeping our stock and other information on our website is essential to its placement on the various search engines. For all that has changed in technology, which alters by the minute, this is one feature that has remained the same. Online marketing is old news, and although we now sell almost entirely in a virtual environment, in the old bricks and mortar days it was rarely that we welcomed a new visitor who hadn’t already visited our website.

Early on, that is 20 years ago when we opened up on Jackson Street in San Francisco, our integrated online inventory program that also allowed us to maintain customer records and generate invoices and shipping records, seemed a hassle to a luddite like me, but using it was a skill to be learned. And, wonder of wonders, what we entered one time could then with the magic of Windows, be copied and pasted onto anything else online. In all honesty, I can’t say that fiddling with technology is my favorite occupation, but since the get-go, Keith McCullar and I knew it was not just a necessary, but more an essential adjunct to our business.

In fairness, I’ll admit that an integrated program for online platforms might be useful, particularly as the shrinking numbers of dealers in the art and antiques trade means a shrinking number of staff, particularly those of a younger age who might have, shall we say, a greater technical proficiency. However, very many of those younger folk who might have become the next generation of traders are to be found in the backrooms of the platforms themselves. The proliferation of these platforms, and we’re invited to join a new one nearly every week, has long functioned to dilute the ability of the established dealer to establish what is critical to the dealer’s survival- a customer relationship. While we’re always happy for the one-off, spot sale, most dealers will acknowledge that their business is not sustained by that. It is the customer who likes the look of one or several dealers, who, although a purchase might be made one at a time, will over the course of years return again and again. Platforms, indeed, the entire internet, affords a prospective buyer nearly infinite choice. ‘Spoiled for choice’ as the saying goes, but in this context, the spoliation is the dwindling numbers of dealer and customer relationships.

So I suppose that’s where I get to, with anything the makes it easier to post one’s stock online. It is at the end of the day online storefronts that are at once both the bane of and an essential adjunct to the survival of the trade. The bane, of course, that the best part of the experience of not just the dealer but also the prospective punter, is moved inexorably into the arid ether of the internet.

Certainly I would share with others in the trade a preference for being on my hands and knees with a torch examining 18th century joinery, or in a darkened room with a black light determining retouchings on a period painting, ideally in the company of a client, but online sales are not just a fact, but essential to a dealer’s survival. And survival, in anyone’s language, is the name of the game

My early morning ritual begins with a long walk on the treadmill at the gym, the bank of which are well supplied with large screen TV’s. As a consequence, I was able to watch a segment on Fox News entitled ‘Indoctrination or Education?’, the point of which, in simple terms, was to dispute the necessity for any consideration of critical race theory in public education in the US. This being Fox, ‘dispute’ understates the tenor of the discussion with ‘decry’ more appropriate.  

My gentle readers won’t be surprised to find that I am an infrequent viewer of Fox News, which most pundits will allow has less to do with news than it does an aggregate of opinionated talking heads, which talk consists of shallow, ill formed criticism of anything espoused by those in government or the media of a more, shall we say, intellectually progressive bent. Fox’s editorial policy would define ‘intellectually progressive’ as ‘socialism’. And we all know how abominable those long standing socialist programs are- Medicare and Social Security, for instance. Anathema. 

I digress.  

A consideration of critical race theory then begs question about the nature of public education, and immediately puts me in mind of teacher training. No one living remembers that teacher training colleges were in the 19^th and early 20^th centuries called ‘normal schools’ by which was meant training in the ability to teach a normalized curriculum of reading, writing and arithmetic. In this, I’d venture to say the United States outstripped the rest of the world in providing a free public education standardized such that all its citizens could communicate with each other linguistically and numerically. Certainly for a nation as geographically disparate, this was an essential feature that ensured social cohesion.  

In my own youth, the public schools that I attended did a great job in promoting the basic curricula, but I can’t honestly say that critical thinking was very much in evidence. In my own hometown, despite a large population of Americans of Japanese descent, I never heard a word about Japanese internment during World War Two until I was well along in high school. And, coincident with that, there was no significant discussion about Jim Crow/Plessy v Ferguson despite the fact that at the time, the civil rights movement was roiling a large part of the country. The only doctrinal issue I can remember from my public schooling was that the American system of government was good- as opposed to communism, the great of evil of my day, which was bad. I remember vividly in a social studies textbook of perhaps my own grade 8, with a photo of a white American family en famille in what would be taken as a comfortably typical home, illustrative of Americanism. The opposing photo was of a group of goose-stepping soldiers marching in the Kremlin. The simplistic, or simpleminded, text beneath these paired photos told how America was a place of freedom and plenty, and Communists’ sole raison d’etre was world domination.   

Ignoring social issues and a dearth of critical thinking within the curriculum makes it of course easier not so much for teachers to teach, but for boards of education to have trouble-free tenures. But then, the remit of all boards of education is governance consistent with the social and intellectual standards of those they represent. A conservative community yields a socially conservative board- a more progressive community yields, well, a slightly less conservative board.  

And ultimately, it is an inherent conservatism in public school education that makes the incorporation of any sort of social change within its established curriculum so difficult to accomplish. And, too, the life of the teacher and the five, ten, or 50 year old textbook renders canonical the thinking of an earlier generation. What might be considered as the socializing effect of a public school education is in reality, a normalizing indoctrination of thoughts and opinions most common at the time a teacher received their credential, or when a textbook was written.  

I have to say, at long last we are generally having discussions that include previously ignored and tabooed subjects related to race, gender, sexual orientation- and sex generally- and economic inequality. Discussions, mind you, of which critical race theory is amongst them. But then, important critical considerations previously ignored must start someplace, and I repeat, at long last. Let’s take another look in our own mind’s eye at the social studies textbook picture of Americanism. Bear in mind that what you don’t see- gender, race, and income inequality- was certainly present, but using the photo as our exemplar, safely out of view and what might have been in view, papered over.  

‘Indoctrination’ as the Fox News commentator would have it is absolute balderdash. The long standing, habitual failure to acknowledge long present and shall I say critical issues that begged for the likes of critical race theory has eaten away at the social cohesion public education was designed to promote. Fox News needs only to pay attention to its own reporting to know the truth of this.  

This morning I watched a Zoom presentation hosted by the University College London New York alumni club, and featuring a presentation by UCL Professor Ben Campkin. The focus was largely on the loss of ‘safe’ spaces for the LGBT community through intensive urban redevelopment and gentrification. What this meant for Professor Campkin was, largely, a loss of gay pubs in greater London. He pointed to, for example, the development of Crossrail and its impact in central London with the displacement of several gay venues, arguing that the change in the governance of London, from the liberality of Ken Livingstone in the early 2000’s to the more recent conservatism of Boris Johnson functioned to deprive the LGBT community of established safe spaces.

Well, maybe.

As someone who as a superannuated UCL student living in London in the 1990’s and early 2000’s, I can say based on my own lived experience that gay pubs were, in the main, no better than any other gay bars anywhere else in the world. They were and are, not to put too fine a euphemistic point on it, toilets. A not so subtle feature should be borne in mind that, in providing so-called safe spaces, landlords effectively victimize the LGBT community, realizing that that community is a captive market that will tolerate almost anything in exchange for a venue in which they can be themselves. There was a time, and the iconic Stonewall Bar is a good example, where many gay bars certainly in New York and San Francisco were actually owned by organized crime who were experienced at victimizing marginalized communities, and who also knew, to keep the LGBT community coming back, that they could pay off the cops- something about which they were also expert- to prevent police raids.

Mind you, Keith McCullar and I met in a gay bar, 41 years ago. At the time, I thought less about a safe space than I did about cruising, and if I wanted a drink, could always go to, shall we say, a more pleasant venue. Neither Keith or I were specifically looking for a life partner, but we found each other, and as a consequence, yet maintain a nostalgic fondness for the institution of the gay bar. ‘Safe space’, perhaps, but any gay man who denies that a bar served primarily as a place to pick up a trick has a loose grasp on the truth.

Frankly, I am not so sure that the gay bar as an institution hasn’t been dying a natural death. Grindr and other such apps that serve as a virtual safe space make the bricks and mortar space redundant. The other thing, and this will engender the ire of social activists everywhere, the LGBT community is more broadly accepted- mind you, with a long way to go, but enough forward progress that as a consequence can feel measurably more safe in taking their custom to non-LGBT venues. Moving from London to San Francisco after a long absence, I asked a gay friend in the city about any gay bars that might serve as a ‘local’ for Keith and me. He sort of curled his lip and said ‘When we go out, we usually go to a decent place.’

Yes, well- we never did find a ‘local’ although we regularly socialize in public venues with gay friends just about anywhere. Of course, our travels and habitations are in cities of a more liberal bent, and it may not be the same in Nether Wallop.

Still, I would argue that a gay bar is a cultural anachronism. Particularly in the context of a gay man in London, the prevalence of cottaging has declined with the liberality that has allowed the opening of the safer spaces of gay saunas. In today’s lecture, I didn’t hear Professor Campkin arguing for the preservation of cottages. Let’s look on gay bars and the necessity for them as safe spaces as emblematic of the bad old days where such venues were not just integral, but essential to the LGBT community. I don’t want to hide in the closet or in a gay bar, which in my view, is the real world equivalent. It seems to me the more compelling effort should be to continue to be out, to socialize the wider world toward ever increasing comfortability and acceptance of the LGBT community to which I am proud to belong.

Most of what my gentle followers will read in this blog post will seem familiar from past years but repeated as it’s worth repeating, and in no small part worthwhile for me to remember. No, not ‘remember’, but continue to remain mindful of.

For Keith McCullar and me, Pride month has a particularly special significance, as 41 years ago, it was in San Francisco yet limited to a parade on Sunday, June 29, 1980, designated Gay Freedom Day. It was though the night before- June 28- that Keith and I plighted our troth and through a variety of circumstances, mostly good and some terrible, we’ve been together ever since.

I’m not so ego driven that I can claim our own personal history is that of gay liberation in microcosm, but the two traditions do intersect, and at the end of the day, I remain a gay man yet trying to negotiate my way through a world that understands me, and my relationship with Keith, only marginally better now than it did 41 years ago. And witness the fact that the notion of gay pride is still fraught with controversy- I am not going out on any limb to suggest that my own history, or indeed that of any other member of the LGBT community, is not a metaphor for gay liberation. Note that I’ve written ‘liberation’- though the LGBT community is entitled to consider itself with pride, it does nevertheless still fight for liberation from the oppression and general opprobrium that waxes and wanes in society at large.

Keith and I both have backgrounds that involve finance, and though you’re doubtless reading this post on our art and antiques website, our avocation as collectors became over time a business and we run it as one. Not precisely a question of old habits dying hard, but we’re by nature practical people, and although Keith’s numeracy skills far excel mine, both of us know that financial literacy is the difference between business success and failure and, of course, success means we can forever pursue our collecting passions. However, the larger world presumes that, in the trade in art and antiques, the purveyor is perforce gay, and as gay, necessarily falling into some kind of sissy-fied stereotype, whose lightness in the loafers is matched by a lightness between the ears- that is to say a paucity of grey matter.

Innumerable times over the past 4 decades, one or the other or both of us have been involved in some business meeting cum negotiation that, by in large, will proceed along a predicable give and take. However, in my own ongoing and long standing effort to socialize society at large to the presence of gay men, I have for years been given to remark somehow about my relationship with Keith in an effort to make it apparent that I’m gay. Very often, and still to this day, the weather within the room will change, and what might be a pleasant atmosphere, then becomes every so slightly, and occasionally not so slightly, fraught. I’ll find that the person seated across the board table becomes more insistent or more tedious in explaining some elementary point. Years and years ago, when I first became aware of this frequent phenomenon, its occurrence puzzled me. It then dawned on me that the gay stereotype of the limp-wristed sissy was so ingrained that those with whom I was dealing insisted that that, and only that, defined me. I couldn’t possibly be an able person of business who was also gay. But rather I was someone who was an interloper, and a stupid one at that- subversive in a straight world, and if I was to remain, I must then be taught to know my place. Which place, of course, was within the limits prescribed by an accepted and acceptably homophobic trope.

The thing is, I would very much doubt that any but a few of those with whom I had had the above described interchange would acknowledge any manner of homophobia and would quickly point to how friendly they are with their wife’s hairdresser, or how helpful the interior designer was when they purchased their new home. In a less politically correct age, I recall a friend in college describing these as, his words, ‘fag jobs’. Perhaps no one says this anymore, or perhaps not as much, but the notion of this, trust me, is yet pervasive and something with which most people in the LGBT community war on a sadly not infrequent basis. Although not expressed with such offensively overt precision, it is apparent that someone in the boardroom or the business community wonders in at least mild frustration and puzzlement why it is that Keith and I don’t know our proper place is behind the cosmetics counter at Macy’s. In this context, ‘uppity’ would be applied not just to a person of color.

It might just be that I’ve been worn down to accept the status quo, but perhaps there is a bit more societal freedom for Keith and me. Although we’ve been together for over four decades, and only able to file joint tax returns and claim social security survivors benefits for the last 8, it has to be acknowledged in lines that only too briefly describe a calamity that much of the tolerance we experience now cost many thousands of lives. HIV/AIDS is rapidly becoming a footnote even in the LGBT community but for Keith and me, who’ve lived to tell the tale what we saw and experienced in the suffering of so many people we thought would be friends for the rest of our lives is almost impossible to describe. What I can say is that we have very few gay peers- gay men of our own age and experience- as a majority of them died in the 80’s and 90’s. A very many of them, with very little in the way of established networks of support even in big cities, found it necessary to return to their childhood homes to die. The tragedy of HIV/AIDS brought a forced recognition of the gayness of someone’s son, grandson, brother, nephew or best friend back to a community they had left seeking tolerance and understanding somewhere else. What had been easy for the family left behind to generally ignore now had to be acknowledged.

I maintain that the tragic way in which the larger world had to come to grips with the LGBT community did at long last bring some legal recognition, if not societal redress. Cold comfort, of course, for those whose lives were forever rent with the loss of friends, loved ones or family members.

But Keith and I are together and happy with one another. Although older, though, I can’t say either of us is precisely mellowed with age, or at least I hope not. As I wrote in the first paragraph, this blog post is penned so that not just my gentle readers but also my own good self does not become complacent. Gay liberation, gay freedom, and now gay pride are empty expressions unless accompanied by an ongoing and sustained effort that may be as simple as wearing a flag pin, flying a rainbow flag or posting one on social media- or my favorite, making sure that anyone with whom I have had a word or two of conversation knows I am in a relationship with Keith McCullar. The pride flag may fly this month, but the effort to confront and overcome must be a daily and conscious task for any and all gay men, and all members of the LGBT community.

A term like conservatism now connotes what has become, amongst so-called conservatives and liberals, the mutually destructive circular firing squad that is now the political environment in Washington DC.

However, the death of HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, puts me in mind of the kind of effective conservatism to which he was adjunct. This will be defined in the context of the following few paragraphs.

We’ve perhaps overdosed on repeated watchings of ‘The Crown’ on Netflix and think we know all there is to know about the royal family, and consider them sticks in the mud wearing clothing styles of several decades ago, personally stifled and forced to live lives of equal part structure and stricture, yielding thereby existences of unusual torment. Think of the bird in a gilded cage as the old song has it.

For TV watching non-royals like you and me, it may all seem that way, but one has to bear in mind that the British royal family is an enduring institution that- save the disastrous republican experience of the Commonwealth for a few years in the middle of the 17th century- has existed for over a thousand years. In a time when we think nothing of upgrading our home based on a change in family circumstance- or trying to cash in on newly acquired equity resulting from an overheated housing market- Windsor Castle has been the home of the royal family since it was built in the 11th century. If one were to think of Windsor Castle as an expression of monarchy within the built environment, ‘enduring’ would be something of an understatement- ‘eternal’ might be nearer the mark.

But of course, individual monarchs, or their consorts, long lived they might be, do not live for 10 centuries, but it is a tenure of which they’re aware- or should I say never not aware. Recent history extends not just to Prince Harry and his mother’s attempts to kick over the traces, but also to that of the undoubted black sheep of the family, Edward VIII that was, whose romantic modernity, while looked upon with some degree of public favor, was considered a near disaster by the larger family and its courtiers. And the why of this? The last time a monarch exhibited popular, man of the people behavior was a century prior, in the person of the Prince Regent, George IV that was, whose exploits, initially popular, eventually brought himself and the institution of the monarchy into such disrepute with his subjects it took the long reign of his niece Victoria to repair the damage.

I’d be on safe ground to assert that the reign of George IV, the bicentenary of whose accession we celebrated last year, is considered recent history by the house of Windsor. I don’t think I’d be going out too far on a limb to suggest that the reign of Charles I two centuries even earlier might also be considered of recent advent, with that king’s excesses resulting in civil war and his ultimate beheading hard lessons to ignore. And easy lessons to remember.

Well, let’s downplay regicide, and acknowledge that after the experiment with the Commonwealth and accession of Charles II there was a shift in power that resulted in a constitutional monarchy that has existed in structure and monarchical function pretty much unchanged until the present day. I’d call 380 years and counting a pretty good run and evidence of lessons well learned.

And it is at this point we should then have a notion of what I called effective conservatism, an understanding- call it in the contemporary phrase an institutional memory, and a memory of centuries’

old standing, of what works in the conjoined roles of head of state and a symbol of nationality. And, conversely, what it is those who are the monarch’s subjects want. Not what the subjects will tolerate- because the lessons of Charles I told the monarchy absolutism would not be tolerated, and the lesson of Edward VIII said emphatically that the monarch’s private life can never be paramount to public responsibility.

As long as I’ve been aware of Prince Philip, as often as I’ve seen him in the company of Queen Elizabeth II, I’ve never seen him not walk several paces behind her, I’ve never seen him try in any endeavor to upstage her. On his own, he did indeed have shall we say a rebarbative personality, and although it would be fun to, I’ll refrain from repeating the numerous times his public comments were, shall we say, not in the best taste. Perhaps, though, his comments that might have best been left unsaid were not that numerous, as I suspect that, in only a few minutes, we could all repeat basically the same anecdotes. In comparing to myself, whose foot has from time to time had to be extracted from my own mouth, in a public career that lasted nearly threequarters of a century, one might say Prince Philip didn’t do too bad. However, very many of his off the cuff remarks were truly egregious and often profoundly racist. They do harken to an earlier day, reminiscent and of a piece with Kipling’s notion of a white man’s burden. All of this is hard to hear now, but not so hard for very many people of Prince Philip’s generation, now very few in number, who fail to realize that the British Empire is long gone, but replaced with an inclusive Commonwealth of Nations appropriate for the modern age.

The generation has changed, and this change could in the history books of the future be marked by the death of Prince Philip. But I do think those same books will note Queen Elizabeth as head of state, and Prince Philip as her consort as fulfilling their roles in a way that brought comfort to their subjects not just in the UK but throughout the Commonwealth of Nations. If I can draw an inexact and sort of clumsy parallel drawn from the history of my own life, my parents, though they might, and did, battle the two of them and have profound disagreements, come the morning, they were both still there. This then begs the question about what effect divorce has on the royal family, and I suspect on larger reflection, the answer would generally be, played out on a national stage the answer would be it could hardly be better than it is when played out within a traditional nuclear family. Thank goodness the royal family has the upcoming and very stable example of Prince William to overshadow the mistakes made on the domestic front by his father Prince Charles. But returning to his own father the imperfect consort- that Prince Philip’s offensive gaffes may have betrayed an allegiance to an earlier age from which the world has, thankfully, moved away, it is perversely this glimpse of flawed humanity that at least partly functions in the present age to bind the monarchy to its subjects, both in the United Kingdom and throughout the commonwealth. Flawed, but flaws that contribute just enough humanity to temper an otherwise remote symbol- and sufficiently human to be endearing.

This is where I get to, then, when considering effective conservatism, with the British royal family as the exemplar. Endurance and comfortability, a comforting realization in an age lacking in certainty that, come what may, they’ll still be there. Conservative, indeed, in the sense of slow to change, but always mindful of change and the need to, but at a pace well-considered that might seem as gradual as the exfoliation of the stonework of Windsor Castle. But then, that’s perhaps as it should be, as Windsor Castle remains of a piece with the Windsor royal dynasty.