The title of the presentation to be given tonight by Dr. Dennis Raverty, assistant professor of contemporary art history, theory and criticism, is “The Gay Muse: Homosexual Themes & Subjects In the Art of the Italian Renaissance & Its Aftermath.”

The subtitle: “Queer Stuff About the Old Masters.”

Possibly a bit provocative, and apt to spark some debate among those who don’t approve of homosexuality. But that is not at all the goal of the presentation, unless of course, the controversy brings the chance for education as well.

“Everyone is entitled to their own opinion,” says Adam Calder, freshman in LAS and member of the LGBTAA. “If there is controversy that means more people will see it and maybe more people will be enlightened and learn a thing or two that they didn’t know before.”

More importantly, the speech, which is sponsored by the LGBTAA, will focus on the facts about homosexuality in the art world during the Renaissance and the research – both past and present – that exists.

“Some of the research done on homoerotic themes in Renaissance art is very sound because we know that homosexuality was very common during this period,” says John Cunnally, associate professor of art history. “In fact, many people called sodomy `the Florentine vice.'”

One of the documented cases is that of Michelangelo, who wrote many letters and sonnets about the object of his desire, a young boy name named Tommaso de’ Cavalieri.

And according to the 1994 book by Emmanuel Cooper, “The Sexual Perspective: Homosexuality and art in the last 100 years,” one of the great minds of the Renaissance, Leonardo da Vinci was implicated in a court case that accused him of homosexuality.

Cooper also cites the profile of Giovanni Antonio Bazzi, better known as Il Sodoma because of the constant company he kept with boys.

“Artists were especially prone to this activity because of the apprentice system,” Cunnally adds. “Adolescent boys were sent to live with older masters in order to be trained in a craft, and they were often subject to sexual abuse.”

Raverty will cover these things, but he will also discuss some of the “sloppy scholarship” that he feels is being conducted today on the subject.

Raverty says the art world has seen a change in the study of art history during the last 25 years – mainly the methodology for studying artists and their work now focuses more on social sciences such as psychology.

This sometimes means aspects of these artists’ lives and work might be subject to over-examination by over-anxious scholars.

“The field [queer studies] is not as strong as it could be,” Raverty says. “The new methodology often lacks a certain scholarly rigor.”

While some people might have some general knowledge of art history, Caldar says he believes even art history students have largely ignored this subject.

“This isn’t an any less valid part of art history or any kind of history and I think that it doesn’t make it into a lot of the mainstream culture,” Caldar says. “I’m hoping a lot of art history and art and design students will show up that maybe don’t know anything about it outside of the textbook.”

Studies involving what has become known as “queer theory” tend to be a guessing game. In the cases where no hard evidence exists, it can be difficult to say whether an artist was or wasn’t gay. But some studies make the claims based on examination of the works done by the artist. An outwardly thrust rear end or the slight revealing of a penis has is in some cases led to an instant label of homoerotic.

Raverty attributes this kind of research to a few things. First he says psychological theories such as those of Freud don’t have much of place in evaluating artwork. Second, it can be somewhat dangerous to apply today’s definitions and terms to a period of time 400-odd years ago.

“It is really not viable to use modern and contemporary terms and ideas and apply them backward in time; it’s risky,” Raverty says.

Raverty says Michelangelo and others would not even know what being “gay” meant. For them, it was something they did, not something they were. Culture in Rome during the Renaissance was a much different culture than we know today; it was only acceptable for men to be painted nude.

So Raverty believes diving into every aspect of paintings done by Renaissance artists is another example of sloppy scholarship.

“Sometimes I think they just assume too much,” Raverty explains. “And I think that sometimes it says more about the scholars than the paintings.”