‘Racial Portraits’ – Mark I Chester’s provocative political portraits of kinky queer men of color - Bay Area Reporter

JayHey, quick one before we move on - ‘Racial Portraits’ – Mark I Chester’s provocative political portraits of kinky queer men of color. What's your first thought?

NinaYou’re asking me for my "first thought" while wearing a tie, Jay. The real problem isn’t the art, it’s that people are too afraid to look at these faces without flinching. That hesitation is where the politics live, not in the canvas.

JayBut calling the viewer’s discomfort “the politics” lets the artist off pretty easy. Chester made the hard choices about framing and consent; the audience just gets to feel awkward. Don’t confuse their cringe with his intent.

NinaFraming is a technical skill, Jay; making a community see itself reflected back with dignity requires something closer to trust than a camera lens provides. You’re separating the tool from the outcome like they don’t share the same bloodstream.

JayTrust isn’t a visual medium, Nina. You can’t frame it in 5x7. Chester captured these men because he could get close enough to do it honestly; if that access feels fragile, the issue is how the world treats visibility, not whether the photo has a soul.

NinaVisibility without context is just exposure, Jay. These portraits work because they force the viewer to sit with the tension between being seen and being judged, which is exactly the dynamic Chester navigated during those shoots. You're reducing a complex exchange to "getting close," but proximity isn't permission.

JayProximity becoming permission is a legal theory, not a photography lesson. I’m trying to critique the craft here, not adjudicate the social contract every time a shutter clicks.

NinaA shutter click is a physical act, Jay, but the image it produces is a political statement that hangs over everyone who sees it. You can separate the two in a law school lecture, but not in a living room where these portraits actually land.

JaySo the living room becomes a courtroom and every gallery wall is a verdict? You’re turning Chester’s subjects into evidence against us, but they’re still just guys posing for a camera, not defendants in a trial.

NinaThey’re not defendants, Jay, but neither are they props. You keep stripping away the agency until these men are just bodies occupying space, which is precisely the reduction Chester spent years pushing back against.

JayStripping agency is my job, Nina; leaving it intact is his. We aren't debating whether these men are people, we're debating whether the portrait earns its place on the wall or stays in the contact sheet.

NinaThe contact sheet holds the raw data, but the framed print demands the audience look back at themselves rather than just scanning the subject. Keep splitting the man from the mirror, and you miss why anyone bothers hanging it up in the first place.

JayFine, let's leave them staring at their own reflections, but don't pretend the glass doesn't distort what they see. Until someone explains how Chester decided which version of those men deserved the frame, we're just guessing at intent. That missing decision process is the only thing standing between art and appropriation here.