100 Years of Photographs of Gay Men in Love

[bdial]

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.

link

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I'm not open enough for this conversation.

 

[Peter Schrager]

I'm not open enough for this conversation.

Its not supposed to be political..its just a book
Touchy subject....for some but reality for others

 

[warden]

I like Hyperallergic but often with their articles were longer. In this case the article is shorter than the description of the book at the web site selling it. But without them I wouldn't have known the book existed so all is forgiven. Judging by the highlight images here the book appears to be a great collection.

 

[Rob Skeoch]

It looks like a sincere presentation of the work and appears to be well done. Currently listed as not in stock, however.

 

[Craig75]

I was expecting them to be slightly ambiguous "friends" photos but they arent ambiguous at all. Interesting collection.

 

[removedacct1]

I'm not open enough for this conversation.

Then why comment at all?

 

[warden]

I was expecting them to be slightly ambiguous "friends" photos but they arent ambiguous at all. Interesting collection.

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.

 

[logan2z]

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.

 

[Vaughn]

Thanks for the link!

Sage Sohier's book looks good, also. A different view from Stonewall Riots of 1969, the Bathhouse scene in SF, and the AIDS epidemic that was starting to roar at that time. It was published in 2014, around twenty-five years later. It would be interesting if she included follow-up interviews, but I could not tell from the info.

 

[Cloudy]

Thank you both for sharing, I remember seeing Sage Sohier's work before, but I had forgotten her name, so it's great to bump into it again.

I am also doing a project photographing the queer community here in Rome, you can see it here

 

[ChristopherCoy]

Touchy subject....for some but reality for others

It's only touchy if someone wants to be touched.

 

[awty]

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.

Its very natural photography, hardly notice the people are same sex. I do notice that same sex couples often have great art work in their homes.

 

[AgX]

I wonder how the curators got hold of these most private photos. Photos that could have ruined their public life.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I wonder how the curators got hold of these most private photos. Photos that could have ruined their public life.

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.

 

[sionnac]

Checked this book out from the library recently, it's gorgeous. https://www.buzzsprout.com/1020073/...otographic-history-of-men-in-love-1850s-1950s

 

[ChristopherCoy]

I do notice that same sex couples often have great art work in their homes.

That's because we like nice things that match the drapes.

 

[Helios 1984]

Its not supposed to be political..its just a book
Touchy subject....for some but reality for others

Then why comment at all?

I believe Ralph is subtly joking.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

I'm not open enough for this conversation.

Congratulations for pissing in the soup in front of everybody else. I suppose acknowledging basic humanity was too much to ask the Great Ralph.

 

[Don_ih]

If you were "gay" by today's way of reckoning, in that period, you were still essentially heterosexual, just deviated.

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.

 

[MattKing]

I'm not open enough for this conversation.

Congratulations for pissing in the soup in front of everybody else. I suppose acknowledging basic humanity was too much to ask the Great Ralph.

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.
My parents grew up with one set of beliefs about gay men and women. Then, as the world changed, their beliefs and their actions changed, and they welcomed more and more people into their world (including into their home) without consideration of what their sexuality was.
But they never became comfortable with discussing that sexuality or with anyone exploring it photographically.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I'm not sure why Ralph felt the need to tell us.

 

[SchwinnParamount]

If Ralph was joking (slightly) as was suggested, it was a pretty risky joke. Most people reacted as though he was serious and assumed he wanted us to know he was just old-fashioned enough to turn a cold shoulder to gay couples. If he was joking, ha ha... not. Bad joke. If he was serious, each person is entitled to their own opinion. However, if that opinion is tinged with intolerance then the opinion holder has earned the right to be spurned when they make their feelings known in a public forum.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

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.

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.

 

[btaylor]

I'm not open enough for this conversation.

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 took a look at a lot of the photos in the link and I didn't necessarily see them as gay- can't they be great friends that love being together? I think there is in general too much pigeon-holing on this stuff- it's all on a spectrum. I was glad to see so many happy guys in the pics.