Hundreds of photographs from the 19th and 20th centuries offer a glimpse at the life of gay men during a time when their love was illegal almost everywhere.
A beautiful group of photographs that spans a century (1850–1950) is part of a new book that offers a visual glimpse of what life may have been like for those men, who went against the law to find love in one another’s arms. In Loving: A Photographic History of Men in Love 1850s–1950s, hundreds of images tell the story of love and affection between men, with some clearly in love and others hinting at more than just friendship. The collection belongs to Hugh Nini and Neal Treadwell, a married couple who has accumulated over 2,800 photographs of “men in love” during the course of two decades. While the majority of the images hail from the United States and are of predominantly white men, there are images from Australia, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, France, Germany, Japan, Latvia, and the United Kingdom among the cache.
Its not supposed to be political..its just a bookI'm not open enough for this conversation.
I'm not open enough for this conversation.
I was expecting ambiguous as well, which makes me wonder about the risks these men were taking to make these images. I like specific collections like this one and it's surprising that it hasn't already been mined.I was expecting them to be slightly ambiguous "friends" photos but they arent ambiguous at all. Interesting collection.
Touchy subject....for some but reality for others
Sage Sohier did a somewhat similar project called "At Home With Themselves: Same-Sex Couples in 1980s America". Photos from the project/book can be found here:
http://sagesohier.com/at-home-with-themselves
Sohier is an excellent documentary photographer.
These were collected out of estate sales, etc. so most of the subjects were no longer of this earth. For the very early ones (mid-19th century photos), it was far more acceptable at that time for men to be physically affectionate with each other, and there was no "gay" identity, so everyone was assumed to be heterosexual. If you were "gay" by today's way of reckoning, in that period, you were still essentially heterosexual, just deviated.I wonder how the curators got hold of these most private photos. Photos that could have ruined their public life.
I do notice that same sex couples often have great art work in their homes.
Its not supposed to be political..its just a book
Touchy subject....for some but reality for others
Then why comment at all?
I'm not open enough for this conversation.
If you were "gay" by today's way of reckoning, in that period, you were still essentially heterosexual, just deviated.
I'm not open enough for this conversation.
I'm not sure why Ralph posted, but I think it may have been more an admission than anything, because I can understand people whose discomfort with a subject that was once considered taboo is hard to shake, even after their beliefs on that subject evolved and changed.Congratulations for pissing in the soup in front of everybody else. I suppose acknowledging basic humanity was too much to ask the Great Ralph.
Oscar Wilde is a complex case. He was still heterosexually married. I don't know that if you asked him if he was a homosexual he would say yes - he had his affairs with men, and certainly fell in love with one, but I don't know that he would have declared for the identity, as such a thing was still in its infancy. He wasn't imprisoned for being a homosexual - he was imprisoned for "gross indecency" which was specifically sexual acts between men (but not sodomy, which was a separate, more serious charge). He was still of the world where people committed homosexual acts but were not "homosexuals", as was the case since at least the Renaissance.Unless, of course, you're like Oscar Wilde and get imprisoned for being a homosexual. There was no such naiveté in the past - the majority of people just quite simply hated anything they found unfamiliar. I don't think that is much different now. Homosexuality is still seen as deviant by the majority. It'd be a miracle if that ever changed.
So many interpretations! I thought it was a mild joke on himself "I'm not open- as in openly gay, which is a common phrase these days, the opposite of closeted - enough for this conversation." But I may be completely wrong.I'm not open enough for this conversation.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?