The morality of homosexual acts aside...
There is nothing questionable about the morality of homosexuality. The fact that the author leads thesis with this is what's questionable....using sex for any purpose other than binding two individuals in an intimate, exclusive relationship is wrong, and it is a decision that I think this young man will regret later in life.
Wrong. Where do I begin? Why is it limited to two individuals? Why does it have to be intimate? Putting too much vested interest in sex, much?But, of course, in rejecting morality (except, of course, the morality of revolt), the spiritual element of life, and all other “boundaries,” and in viewing society as governed by power relations alone, performance art, more often than not, brings us into contact with what is most animalistic in us or transforms moments of great humanity (such as giving birth or making love) into mere tools of “liberation.” And instead of freeing kids like Clayton Pettet, it sells them on a rather impoverished, mechanistic view of sex and life.
So in conclusion; the author tries to box art into the framework of his own ideologies using a long winded, self important last paragraph. Or in other words, nothing but judgmental garbage. Which is a shame, because it seems as if Mattix has some background in art history, and he does draw some interesting relationships to the dehumanization aspect of contemporary performance art, but he spoils it by narcissistically wrapping it in a backwards and bigoted tone.
While I agree that the author was off base when he talked about the morality of homosexuality, I don't think is overall analysis of contemporary performance art is wrong. Obviously his moral perspective comes from a conservative Christian worldview, that sex is something sacred and homosexual is something morally objectionable. A liberal would take offense to that view, but from the authors perspective its totally valid. Arguing about whose view is right and whose is wrong doesn't get us anywhere. Ultimately I think his line about putting aside the morality of homosexuality was directed towards readers who would stop reading as soon as they read the word homosexual. Performance art has just dropped into this realm of trivializing actions that would otherwise mean something. A piece like Shoot allows rich white benefactors to look at the act of getting shot as something entertaining. Hardly the thought of someone getting shot on the wrong side of town. "Wow what an experience." The author might be off with the moral argument, but so much of performance art trivializes intimate acts (that in many cases would be intimate) by doing things just because they are interesting. If there wasn't this degree of intimacy in the act of losing his virginity Clayton Pettet would have never done the piece.