#qessay

[angstics]

i finally articulated my opinion on my "is gerard way doing drag" question. my definition of drag is when a person impersonates, exaggerates, or appropriates a mode of gender expression. drag can be artistic or political (or both). drag can be an identity. drag and transgender identity are confused as the same thing. for some, it is. what is considered cross dressing can also be considered drag. it's important to note that drag is essential to queer culture, and how the us government harasses queer people through cross dressing, and now anti-drag, laws. we wouldnt be here talking about pop artists doing drag without drag performers and nonbinary-trans-gnc people.

to some people, a self-identified man in a female-identified dress is drag. "cross dressing" depends on cishet norms. queer people, especially nonbinary-trans-gnc people, have called to dismantle the assignment of gender to clothing. under that lens, a man in a dress is just a man in a dress -- for it to be drag, context and intent matters. that's how you get women doing female drag, or androgynous people doing what gerard way's been doing this last year on tour.

in asking "is gerard way doing drag?", im assigning importance to the topic. does it matter? within my understanding, drag is about intent and context as much as gender presentation. intent and context is what makes something important. therefore: understanding why the question is important solves it.

male music artists have a long history of cross dressing and doing drag. there's a good chance plugging any dude into a search engine with "drag" or "skirt" will bring something up. bowie, queen, nirvana, manic street preachers, placebo. here's a list. newer artists: lil nas x, harry styles, anthony green, pete wentz, young thug. some are impersonating female caricatures, some are masculinizing female clothes (long, ill-fitting, straight). some, like molko and lil nas, wear feminine clothes without exaggerating or masculinizing. gerard is in that same grey area.

male music artists have a long history of cross dressing and doing drag -- photos: "i want to break free" mv by queen (1984) / placebo in london (oct 1998) / lil nas x at audacy beach festival (dec 5, 2021) / fall out boy at rock for people (june 17, 2022)

all that history is why it was so weird when kerrang called gerard's riot fest "dress and heels" "a compelling show of contrarian anti-rock star eccentricity". it is not anti-rock star, at least not as described. it may be compelling, contrarian, and eccentric, but no reviewer really cares to analyze why. the closest they get is by identifying non-binary connection (them.us) and its relation to the "minefield that is American gender politics today" (latimes.com).

fans were struck by way's outfits for a lot of other reasons.

1. we have to get it out of the way that they just looked hot -- gerard is perpetually attractive, skirts are pretty. easy equation.

2. he has a long history of gender nonconformity. more on that in my #mcr queer studies tag. gerard is a 45 year old famously androgynous person who doesnt do labels, aligns himself with gender nonconformity (2014 reddit ama, 2018 advocate article, 2015 he/they tweet), and doesnt seem to care to be known as a man.

3. the tour outfits were well-fitted. many were crafted by skilled designer marina toybina and her team. which leads to ->

4. the outfits were very casual and very feminine. as mentioned, most men opt for masculine, ill-fitting skirts. which is to say they are NOT showing leg and they are definitely not showing ass. gerard doesnt steer clear from shortness or tightness or movement. he also dresses in ways people dress day to day -- the miniskirt is as casual as the shorts as casual as the jeans. there's some discussion to be had about what casual means -- he could be imitating expected presentation or just using basics, like his frequent shirt and pants.

the miniskirt is as casual as the shorts as casual as the jeans -- photos: firefly music festival (sept 23, 2022) / uncasville (sept 1, 2022) / eden project night 1 (may 16, 2022)

5. there was variety. many outfits, many types. he wasnt just doing pure femininity. some looks were high concept, some low concept. some gendered, some genderless. some feminine, some masculine. it was playful. its honesty evident in its fluidity yet cohesiveness. expanded in the next points ->

6. they incorporate elements of masculinity and gender neutrality concurrent with the feminine. his aggressive, energetic performance style often doesnt mind what people are seeing when his skirt lifts or shirt droops. he has little to no make-up -- if he does, it's stage and not glam. the closest he gets is the agender black swan look at boston night 1, the stage contour at wwwy night 3, and dubious lipstick at firefly. he also maintains the same hairstyle: barely styled, not straightened-curled. pinned a few times, gelled back some other times.

he has little to no make-up -- if he does, it's stage and not glam -- photos: boston night 1 (sept 7, 2022) / when we were young night 3 (oct 29, 2022) / firefly music festival (sept 23, 2022)

7. the character outfits weren't caricatures, like green's sleazy hooker or queen's uptight housewives. gerard's characters were appropriated but not exaggerated. cheerleader, nurse, manson girl, jackie o, princess diane, st joan. all figures of pop culture. he wore them as they were. even comparing green and way's similar white-green cheerleader costumes there's a difference in presentation. green wears long leggings, way wears shorts. green's costume is based on a stranger things character, way's is a custom remade vintage outfit. green exhibits the masculinization of feminine clothes which way subverts. this comparison highlights what makes way's outfits different, and therefore exciting to talk about.

green exhibits the masculinization of feminine clothes which way subverts -- photos: saosin in garden grove, ca (oct 27, 2022) / mcr in nashville, tn (aug 23, 2022)

8. and when he played with masculinity, it was in a way that was dubbed "boydrag". the new jersey night 2 casino singer look was a dramatic caricature that heightened masculine features until they were pure style... the defintion of camp. he had a mustache -- thin like john waters or a confirmed bachelor, and drawn on with eyeliner. he had a suit -- a pink-gold, glittery woman's cut jacket with a glittery bowtie and pleated shirt. the dramatic flair is accentuated by the black eye make-up, the frank sinatra "my way" cover, the drum tag: "the house always wins".

the defintion of camp -- photos: new jersey night 2 (sept 21, 2022) 1 / 2

when i asked which outfits others considered drag, all replies identified the casino singer and jackie o as drag and the rest as "just clothes". this relation made me understand why the rest couldnt be drag despite all the connections i talked about above. the jackie o outfit doesnt exaggerate the source like casino singer, but the source itself is both highly dramatic and highly gendered. cheer is gendered but not highly dramatic, st joan dramatic but not highly gendered. diane is gendered and dramatic, but not highly. the list goes on and on. it's a fine line. especially cheer could tip into drag for me.

but the source itself is both highly dramatic and highly gendered -- photos: mcr at riot fest (oct 12, 2022) / jackie kennedy onassis (jan 3, 1971)

if drag is understood in this way, simply wearing gendered clothes isnt drag. the look itself has to be about the performance of gender, however that may be presented. that’s the importance of classification. we can see what the artist is doing.

[angstics]

on my chemical romance's history of racism:

(edit: i wont rewrite anything since that will create discrepancies in reblogs. however, i will include these important additions: post 1 and post 2)

cultural appropriation is a neutral term that turns negative when people co-opt a culture without consideration to its people and history, or their prejudices and privileges. the rising sun japanese flag is an imperialist symbol used during japan's occupation of other countries from 1870 to 1945 (the guardian 2019). unlike other symbols of terror, the rising sun is normalized because of the japanese government's refusal to acknowledge its history. the symbol's meaning was popularized a few years ago when people from south korea protested its legality in the 2020 tokyo olympics (bbc 2020). aware or unaware of its history, americans have long appropriated the rising sun. in part because of their fascination with japanese art, in part because of orientalism -- a fixation on asian cultures that centers "exoticism".

my chemical romance has been associated with the rising sun symbol a couple of times. frank iero used to have a tattoo of it. gerard way designed frank's killjoys outfit to include it (seen in concept art and music videos). it is often used in mcr fanart.

tokenism is when something contains limited diversity to divert criticisms for the lack of it. my chemical romance has had a very white cast of characters in their music videos and stories. in the "i dont love you" music video, a main character is in black body paint. in the casting call, they specifically asked for a white man (there is 100% an online source -- please let me know if you have it). even casting a black person for this role would place him in a video that appropriated his skin color to mark his "difference" from the light-skin female character.

the female character points to the band's main problem with tokenism. if they arent casting a white woman, theyre casting a light-skin asian woman. the woman in the "i dont love you" mv is fetishized for physical traits stereotypically attributed to east asian women: big eyes, daintiness. east asian women feature most prominently aside from the band and main characters in the "welcome to the black parade" music video and photo shoot. the photoshoot is the only place where an ashy-faced black man and ambiguously tribal? brown man are seen (brought in by photographer chris anthony per the "making of the black parade" book). the director antagonist of the danger days music videos (shown in "sing") is a japanese woman. she is the only main character of color in the music videos and the killjoys: california comics. the focus of this post is on my chemical romance, but the comics are important to showcase that the reality is never "color-blind casting" or "limited roles". it's mostly white creatives (band members and directors and artists) who ignore non-white people when they cant use them, reflected as much by gerard way years later (nyt 2019).

"japan takes over the world" is a media trope that is built on the late 20th century fear of the return of imperial japan. this trope frames japanese people as unique aggressors, feeding into "yellow peril" fears of asian people "taking over" the white race. this trope is suggested all over the danger days universe, where the corporation BL/ind overthrows the US government. the appropriation of the japanese modern flag and lettering on the killjoys outfits, the primary BL/ind villain being a japanese person who only speaks japanese in videos, the official BL/ind website having a ".jp" domain and english-japanese translations. japanese people and culture only exist in this universe to decorate and threaten.

the point of this post is not to punish my chemical romance. in the decade+ since, they have made meaningful changes -- the sing it for japan project to aid japan during the 2011 earthquake-tsunami, developing diversity in gerard's comics / tv show, a mexican-american main character in the 2020 summoning video. people of color treated as real goddamn people.

however. all these faults exist in frozen time. there is no discussion attached to the work. so anyone, fan or casual, may come across it and not notice or care for these important issues. i know all this shit and i still fail to see instances of what i highlighted. it's difficult locating not only your own prejudices but those of others. those you look up to.

"my chemical romance" is the product of many people from 2001 to 2013. many of these people were male, white, american, and/or, most radically, liberal. clearly laying out what they did wrong is important. being careful with history and culture and personhood is important. prioritizing growth is important. constantly. forever.

[angstics]

i do think what ever is going on with my chemical romance and sexuality + gender is more complicated than "these people are straight" or "these people are queer". they ~came out~ as straight a few times. they're gen x. the 90s - 00s were TERRIBLE to nonconforming people. theyre obviously into women. most of their Statements were pre 2016 and now their support is lowkey.

im always reminded of the kurt cobain 1992 advocate quote: “If I wouldn't have found Courtney, I probably would have carried on with a bisexual lifestyle.” of the billie joe armstrong 2010 out mag quote: "But I'd never say that I'm not [bisexual]. I dont really classify myself as anything. And when it comes to sex, there are parts of me that are very shy and conservative. I want to respect my wife." of this entire pete wentz 2008 out article, which ends with the writer's conviction: "So maybe its time for a little fuck-you of our own, at least to the idea that a guy cant be a good queer role model unless he actually has sex with men." of the grant morrison 2022 rolling stone quote: "The 'they' thing was kind of given to me, and I’ve accepted it as a badge of honor."

this was the gen x / 90s - 00s understanding of queerness. this is why i dont trust labels -- they can mean anything. i trust expression and i trust action.

[angstics]

long post rambling about mychem eagles —

there’s been a sort of depersonalization (probably wrong term?) push by artists and audiences to separate art from artist, and for the audience to see art as fictitious rather than biographical. im thinking about mitski. it seems much of mychem (gerard’s solo work too) is transparently “based on real life”.

talking about this because im thinking about “im her kind of girl, shes my kind of boy” and variations and how it is taken as a personal statement (or reflection or something). in eagles alone this line isnt the only one taken this way (the eagles references, “all along the coast theyre waiting”, “one good turn deserves another”, “everyone likes their picture taken”, “want you to set me on fire” etc all being band commentary) but there’s some nonsense (even one of the variations, “im her kind of dog, she’s my kind of cat”?), so there’s def a mix of fiction and non. it’s a good study of songs that live in the real-fiction area. suddenly thinking of that green day song about coming out. say what you will about green day, thats a wild song to put out in 1994. songs like these that speak to a certain experience that isnt totally universal… you know something that cant be a secret because it’s said out loud, but it’s a secret because you have an understanding that feels, well, intrusive. even with non queer stuff, like foundations. it is SO revelatory of what happened with the band, ESP since theyve avoided talking about it reeeeeally. but at the end of the day theyre still assumptions. even when he explicitly places HIMSELF, HIS STORY, in the song. IT’S STILL A SONG. IT WILL FOREVER BE JUST A SONG! WHAT IS TRUTH! is an interview truth? is a conversation truth? is your therapy session truth, is your diary? what is truth? what is truth? if art cant be truth what the fuck can it be?

i just started left hand of darkness so im on le guin’s authors note. she talks about this, which is probably why im thinking about it. she says:

“The only truth I can understand or express is, logically defined, a lie. Psychologically defined, a symbol. Aesthetically defined, a metaphor.”

well i dont know… maybe the artist understands as much as the viewer. in the sense that when art is created it isnt the artist’s anymore. who said that? probably gerard. so everyone is at equal footing. it is as true to the artist as it is to the spectator — more apt, the artist is a spectator. i guess im looking for intent (the encoding). it’s weird how we sometimes decode in order to know the encode, which is by definition unknowable.

WELL. all to say that i love that line (i love all of eagles) and im glad he said it and im glad it holds whatever meaning it has that he felt compelled to not only say it but to keep it for a while… it rules… i think about it all the time and im just so happy about it lol… but it is undeniable that part of the happiness is the person saying it - in 2 senses: that there IS someone and WHO that someone is. FINI

[angstics]

this post about lesbian divas rlly delighted me. it's fun to see this niche topic talked about and expanded on with lots of examples. soooo i compiled all the responses as of 21/09/23 10:30pm EST and put them in a spreadsheet. then ranked them by how much of a diva i consider them lol

first off, the general list. i found 152 unique responses in the replies, tags, and comments. some were only first names so i didnt bother researching into who the poster was talking about. images for ease of viewing:

second... what is a diva?? clarifying where im coming from is important to understand my upcoming opinions. i should make clear that im talking about DIVAS as in DIVA WORSHIP as in LIZA MINNELLI-BARBRA STREISAND-BETTE DAVIS-LADY GAGA etcetera. dykes can see these female celebs as divas as well, but what the original post touches on is the male diva.

this rthko ask explains the diva well. you should also take a look at scholarly articles and books -- divas have been a part of recorded gay culture and esp gay male culture and drag queen culture forever -- the term isnt concrete. rthko says that "there's no real formula" but lists these typical features of a diva:

larger than life -- glam, humor, charisma? would a drag queen impersonate them?

theatrical / proximity to theatre

sexy / horny -- rthko notes here that these arent requirements, citing liza's lack of sexual overtness

strength

niche -- can be popular but not a general crowd-pleaser

gay rights supporter -- before it was cool

now rthko is talking about female divas, even noting the blind spot for bi/lesbian fans and artists. i say you can apply the same features to male celebrities to identify the male divas dykes idolize. i should note that some of the ppl on the list are women or genderqueer. so the list is not entirely male.

another note: im putting so much emphasis on DIVAHOOD because it's SUCH a specific term. not all icons, "weird little guys", "blorbos" are divas. one thing rthko doesn't touch on is how a diva often has a strong sense of self that the devotee can identify and want to emulate -- at the xtreme, leads to drag art. if they dont inspire and amaze, then are they a diva?

lets get into part 3: which of these 152 people / concepts / groups are honest to god divas? you can argue they're all Icons to some extent (the bare minimum being having a lesbian fanbase) but do they have what rthko and i (and gay culture researchers) consider to be the features of a diva?

first thing i did identify those i both recognized and "saw divahood within". ended up with 44:

then i shrunk down the list even further to 18 (again, pure opinion):

then i ranked the 44 more methodically by mapping out the 7 features of the diva:

several important notes:

this ranking is not definite -- though i tried to be fair, considering the limits to what i know, it is subjective

i dont know the histories of some of these people, so i may be missing some things. an inverse example: i know far too much about gerard way, so i had a good idea of how he fit into each feature

some of these i couldnt decide whether i should check or not. al pacino i was esp worried about... couldnt justify checking those boxes the way i can for other people

either way, my findings yielded interesting results! 3 of the most commonly talked about singer-songwriters (bruce, bob, johnny) ranked low. this may indicate that there's other features to the male diva that arent specified or dont apply to females divas / gay male devotees. perhaps defined gender expression, or “voice for lesbians”, or something else.

all of the people with a score of 4 or more can be emulated. "sex" (meaning overt sexuality) is the least common feature, after "theatrical".

though anyone can be a diva to anyone, there's a certain "canon" of who is a diva in gay circles. liza barbra bette gaga. this messy qualitative approach is an attempt to figure that out for dyke divas. i would love to talk about it more.

[angstics]

i have thoughts on people constantly diverting from the personal significance of gerard's outfits the past tour to focus on ONLY the Current Social Meaning. personal not in the identity sense (since that's very subjective) but the newfound freedom to explore the breadth of gender expression in context of this being a difficult, frowned-upon thing in documented mcr history. from cross-dressing being self-described as creepy in 05 to the constant homophobic harassment, both explicit (violence, slurs) and implicit (othering the gender nonconformity, quick dismissal of the band).

diversion like when that anon called the tour "performance art in solidarity with an oppressed queer group" (not singling out the anon, ive seen this take several times) dehumanizes the performer. he is not a vessel, he's a physical person impacted by said oppression. gerard's history matters. others have different reasons, but mine is that it further emphasizes how Normal it all is and should be, and how Terrible it all was and still is. you know that wearing that the cheer dress in 2004 wouldve amplified the harassment. and in reaction to that, the dress would become a pure "Fuck You". it would become an angry object, like the prorev kisses.

but somehow in 20 yrs the world changed. and with that, how gerard interacted with nonconformity changed. the cheer dress is still a "Fuck You", but that's not the only thing it is. it emanates joy. it's well-thought out and beloved. the cheer dress (and every single outfit) is loved for what it IS!!! not just what it means!! love being louder than rage is a miracle. it means we can do more than survive. we can evolve and become new things. that is EXACTLY what i am reading from my chemical romance today. i cant help feeling the intent in the joy.

[angstics]

(sources: nyt 2014, bryan ferry: 1976, 1979, maximilianmogg.de 2021, gerard way: 2005, sleek 2016, bowie: 1973, 1978, ama 2014, gerard way: 2014)

gerard way on style, authenticity, gender, british music from the 70s and 90s... and COSTUMES. that was just a primer on the topic i actually want to talk about, which is how different the outfits this past tour have been stylistically from anything gerard has PULLED FROM or DONE.

this entire run, 2022-23, the closest gerard ever got to wearing something he would've worn during the first period (01-13) was the when we were young shows. part making fun: the second night (the first was cancelled) they wore a replica of their revenge album run outfit with HEAVY old age makeup. part homage: night three, they wore something so reminiscent of colleen atwood's work that in conjunction with gerard's tour designer (marina toybina) saying atwood worked with gerard on something not specified and toybina not claiming this outfit as she usually would, led people to believe this was the work of atwood. which is significant because she designed the original black parade costumes!

(wwwy2, wwwy3, 2004, 2006)

every single other show was unique in some way. from the tshirts to loose jeans to short shorts to tight skirts to a nurse uniform to a full joan of arc get-up. this isnt to say they didnt divert from the "uniform" back in the day with other outfits -- but the new stuff either became the new regular or they were rare. they were always on theme. even beyond that, the wwwy looks are what people know them for. it's part anti-marketing -- no defintion, no statement. they just performed and people loved it. the only person to even publicize it is toybina, who just talked about the craft.

it's also part anti-glam aesthetically. for a decade, the same figures informed gerard's performance style. in evolving past The Past, he moves away from those figures. never entirely, especially not in artistic ideology. like you can see traces of ferry's idea of the authentic self interrupting expectations or bowie's evolution into softer adaptations of past selves -- but not as much as the hesitant alien look which was explicitly about that. looking at original glam rock style like bowie as ziggy stardust, there is an accentuation, drama, and single vision which defined mcr's revenge and early black parade aesthetics. those periods were gerard's biggest dedication to hair and make up until hesitant alien, which he describes as a return to glam.

looking at the tour vision today, it has none of these qualities. ive talked about how the outfits (mostly) arent highly dramatic or highly gendered, which is why i dont think calling it drag fits. esp on the drama point, that's a key aspect of glam missed. there's no makeup, no accentuation, no BIGNESS. the tour is marked by its long-range simplicity. when the drama comes, it's in the dirty and off-putting, not style. it's interesting that when way does act as a character, like the office worker or dracula, it's entirely physical like a stage actor not a singer. though those are just sparks. he doesnt "break" because it's just gerard as we know him.

one final thread to address here is the gender sphere. if gerard explicitly pulled from glam rock mcr 1.0 into hesitant alien, and he's mostly divorced from glam now... where is all this newfound gender presentation exploration coming from? from female archetypes (cheerleader, jackie-o) to theatrical gender neutrality (any of the body suits) to what wouldve been called "metrosexual" in 2006 (atlanta, nj2) to just a general feminine outfit (firefly, 8/9 of the 2023 leg) -- the artist has their source, meaning, motivation, sure. this step back from talking about anything is sooooooo genius for getting people to take what they want from the tour's artistic output. interpretation fuels discussion. people keep talking about the possible narratives of the albums. people keep talking about the constructed interpersonal narratives. people will keep talking about the mysterious narrative of this tour.

what people have taken from the looks of this tour is that they are a recontextualization of symbols gerard has always connected to -- one example is how cheerleaders went from an old failed pitch to the im not okay mv to revenge photoshoots to the blood and teenagers mvs. but unlike the wwwy outfits, he isnt using the symbols in the same way. it's entirely new that he becomes the exploited female figure he's attached to. the inspiration is the self. there's no avoidance. i think "foundations" had a lot do with the direction of the tour -- its self-reflection forming a new image, in both lyrics and sound, is exactly what the tour looks have been about. not Glam, not Post Glam... not mcr 1.0, not not mcr 1.0... making up new words for an old language to write stories not possible with just the old

[angstics]

inspired by this post by @ephedrineshot:

and they still goin. real interesting how much negativity towards mcr at their come-up had to mention the theatricality and make-up (Several times). interesting because this is the beginning of the mainstream's "we're okay with gays now" era. par exemple: mcr was criticized for using "gay shock factor", which was apparently soo 90s -- said while prop 8 was being voted into law. some critics pretended the band was simply Too much -- operatic, overzealous, ineffective. this way, they avoid the base fact of being uncomfortable with feminine men in make-up, or homoerotic music / performance, or interest in stereotypically gay art like theatre + fashion.

this is a thing straight people do - camping the uncamp to ignore its seriousness. what parts of mcr are camp is debatable (to me, it's the alter egos, some songs like sing, the androgyny). but the entire band is not a camp object. using susan sontag's notes, the object has to be very earnest about a message that fails to reach the audience. it has to be self-involved to the point the style supersedes the meaning. though mcr has an extraordinary mission that should've failed and made it into a proper camp object, they succeeded. they were instant flames with a major label debut in 2 years. the work is taken seriously -- from the themes of mental illness and religious guilt to the complexity of the music. the most common accolade given to my chem is "this band saved my life". proven by the success of the return tour and foundations of decay, mcr accessed a huge audience that wouldnt have been interested in them if just for their aesthetics -- which in turn made them special as the mainstream band with style.

camp objects are either assigned as camp (like hollywood stars) or created as camp works (like john waters' films). if there is a circle of "camp aficionados", then its membrane cannot be penetrated. it can only reach out. which is to say: people who like camp choose what's camp. at the same time, self-aware camp objects do not seek out people uninterested in camp. which is to say: aware camp does not try to go mainstream (ryan murphy tv is lackluster for trying). camp is essentially an intellectual genre (sontag also talks about this). aficionados pride the work on being expressionist, referential, cultured. even when the naive camp object is mainstream, the quality of camp is a hidden gem for people "in the know".

to better understand my point, here's an argument for a camp aspect of mcr. the band's androgyny was misunderstood into obscurity to the point of being campy. while researching contemporary attitudes during the first era (articles, online posts, essays), i didnt find any indication that audiences understood the purposeful nonconformity of their looks. observations did not go beyond "gerard way looks like christina ricci" -- a focus on style over meaning. the greatest impact was the mcr-pioneered emo style inspiring male / nonbinary / trans / gnc people to dress femininely. perhaps fueled by gerard's post-break up conversations on gender, one of the most celebrated aspects of the band TODAY is the gender nonconformity. the rolling stone describes their first 2022 performance (may 16, at eden sessions) as "an understanding of what emo always was as a subgenre and cultural movement, and is now appreciated for being – a camp and feminine enterprise" (source). i am choosing to interpret this quote as describing the emo aspect of my chem, opposed to limiting the band to the single emo label. in that sense, this quote is a revelation in past and present existences converging as misunderstandings of genderqueerness are reconciled. the campiness is assigned today by people who recognize this under-represented aspect of the band -- camp aficionados.

to end of, theatre is not inherently camp. neither is homosexuality. nor is the sole state of being grand, stylish, or loud. the intent and result of the work has to be examined for the assignment to make sense. you've already failed if you use "camp" as an insult. but if the assignment also doesnt make sense, then you're purposefully using "camp" as shorthand for "i dont want to engage with queer junk". you've failed as both an intellectual critic and decent person.

aside: gay people often misuse "camp" to mean "fun". this is fine because i love gay people. we also pioneered the term. who's to say this isnt a hidden meaning... camping camp...