The naked men topic

[Akki14]

Watching the 7 Photographs that Changed Fashion and the last photograph of a shirtless man carrying tyres. And the commentary from Rankin described it as homoeroticism brought mainstream.

Why are male nudes(or semi-nudes) seemingly more likely to be "homoerotic" than Fine Art?

This does kind of interest me and maybe once I get my studio setup finally complete in a few months, I'll have a go at exploring it but I just like to listen to other people yap about their thoughts on it too

 

[arigram]

Possibly a stereotypical concept born out of the patriarchal society in which males are seen as the common creators and consumers of art, thus the prevalence of the naked female form. Even when the said males are truly homosexual, the conservative nature of the society forces upon them the "proper" heterosexual concepts. The natural desire to enjoy the view of the human body in pictorial form, especially when labeled "Fine Art" or "study" is a product of the conservative society that frowns upon the unclothed human, especially in public. Not that in a more liberal society, artistic studies of the human form wouldn't happen, but they wouldn't be often viewed as "porn masked as art" as fine art nudes are often seen as. Thus, the male nude, in such a society, is seen as both "artistic porn" and made by and targeting a homosexual audience.
But then again, I haven't dubbed in the subject myself and it would more the alley of experts such as dear Flying Scott here. So, I pass on the mic.

 

[JBrunner]

Since I have observed women's reaction to that photograph on more than one occasion, I would say that Rankin is just plain wrong, and appears to be either displaying his own preference, or a hang up. While a nude isn't devoid of sexuality, neither is a photograph of a fully clothed subject. It's just easier for some folks to find the sexuality in a nude. The simpler the person, the more the tendency have the hang up of seeing only sexuality in the nude human form. Of course some photographs are all about sexuality, porn being the prime example. While the photograph in question certainly exudes sexuality, I would think comments concerning it that display an orientation tell more about the observer. Declaring male nudity "homoerotic" as a blanket without qualification simply says "I'm thoughtlessly latently gay", or "I'm really hung up about my sexual orientation".

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Declaring male nudity "homoerotic" as a blanket without qualification simply says "I'm thoughtlessly latently gay", or "I'm really hung up about my sexual orientation".

Either that or "I was raised by cave Baptists and have no independent will of my own".

I find the whole question of the sexuality of a male nude fascinating and puzzling at the same time. I too don't understand why people have to impose a sexuality on a male nude that they don't impose on a female nude. I think Ari is about dead on with the assertion that the origin of this comes from a presumption that the only creators and consumers of imagery are men. I have yet to see a female nude of any kind labeled "homoerotic". Even though Ruth Bernhard shot female nudes, and was a strongly woman-identified woman (I don't want to pigeonhole her sexuality, as she seemed to practice multiple varieties over her lifetime), nobody goes around saying, "gosh, those are some lesbian nudes!".

I also find it interesting that the imputed sexuality of the photographer is also applied to the model. Any male photographer shooting male nudes is presumed to be gay, and any models posing for said photographer are also assumed to be gay, often with the (un)spoken assumption that something sexual and untoward happened between the photographer and the model. Which, I can assure the assembled ears, is entirely wishful thinking. The only model(s) I have ever been frisky with were partners who happened to pose for me after we were partners.

 

[Vaughn]

Heather, the nude I sent you was actually meant for a younger relative of mine who is openly gay, sensitive (he is a musician in a symphony and study/teaches music) and rather intelligent. But all he could see in the image was its sexuality..."Maybe I would like it if I was old." or something along those lines. I had printed it for him because I thought he would appreciate it as a study of light and a beautiful object...and I thought he would be the last one to think, as FC put it, "Any male photographer shooting male nudes is presumed to be gay, and any models posing for said photographer are also assumed to be gay..."

I guess I should have included a Greek column or something...

Vaughn

 

[Akki14]

Scott - I was thinking the same thing, I've never heard anyone describe a female nude photograph as being lesbian. There's some interesting inequality in nude artforms, especially in the trying to explain art category.

Vaughn - That's interesting because I don't find it a sexual image at all. It is a very sensitive male Fine Art Nude and ticks all the Fine Art boxes nicely without having the sort of "beefcake homoerotic male" images sort of thing going on with it. Adding a greek column would have been adding in a phallic object and just made it more sexual

I've just found Rankin's version online if anyone wants to oogle it. I noticed it certainly doesn't have the muscular tension in the lower torso that the orginal had... i think it's definitely a case of photographer hangups not making the best image possible.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...Photographs-that-Changed-Fashion.html?image=6
And it has to be said, when I saw the picture, I thought of the diet coke break tv advert where all the ladies go grab a soda to oogle the topless man on the neighbouring construction site... making it not a very homoerotic image. Maybe it's down to men not wanting their women to oogle other men too?

anyway overall it was a good show and I enjoyed watching him use a 10x8 camera for one shot.

 

[Chazzy]

Call me naive, but I don't see why a fine art nude should necessarily be "erotic" at all, regardless of the sex of the model. Weston's nudes certainly don't strike me that way--they're simply studies in form, not fundamentally different from his studies of peppers. Even mild cheesecake and beefcake photos don't strike me as very erotic. Maybe part of the problem is that some people have never been exposed to real, hard-core pornography, to be able to see the obvious difference. Well, at least to me it's obvious. I find it annoying when critics start analyzing a photographer's sexuality on the basis of his photos--for example, some of the discussion of F. Holland Day's male nudes. They're just nice male nudes, and I don't really care whether Day was a homosexual or not. To me it seems irrelevant to appreciating the photos.

 

[dpurdy]

Interesting to think about. I notice if you back up two images in those seven you come to a fully clothed woman by Helumt Newtonish. Rather than homo or lesbian erotic they call the model Androgynous.

Maybe the assumption is more that nudes are always looked at by men. If the nude or erotic muse is male then it must appeal to men who like looking at men.

For the record I have quite a lot of male nudes that aren't intended to be erotic and would only be if the person looking was waaay under employed sexually.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Chazzy- interesting that you would see F Holland Day's nudes that way. To me, they almost all just SCREAM eroticism. Granted, sublimated eroticism, but to me they are very much a study of what Fred found enticing. I suspect, as many of his critics/biographers have said, that these photographs were, for him, the closest he ever came to sex with his models (with one possible exception of one of his models he shot frequently, and with whom he had a lengthy exchange of letters that suggest but never reveal an intimate relationship). I'm sure had he done something with the boys he used as models, a scandal would have erupted at least as great as the Oscar Wilde scandal in England. Ironically enough, F. Holland Day was Wilde's publisher here in the US.

 

[removed account4]

Why are male nudes(or semi-nudes) seemingly more likely to be "homoerotic" than Fine Art?

i think it has to do with the insecurities men have.

 

[arigram]

I agree with everything the guys have written above. It was good to see that everyone has something important to add to the subject.
I don't see it as a big deal though. I am sure that it can pose a few challenges, such as galleries or exhibition spaces being reluctant to host a subject with "homosexual overtones" or finding a model to pose, but even them are relatively minor, able to overcome and depend much on your geography, not a general attitude.
In the end its really in the eye of the beholder and one sees their own reflection in an artwork and an artist shouldn't let other's opinion stop him/her from creating or exhibiting, even though (s)he should care about them at the same time. I am always glad to hear people's opinion on my work, especially if they tell me something new, but I don't really care if they like it or not (unless they are paying for it).
When it comes to sexuality though, I think an artist has to have a connection with the subject (any subject) and visual carnal attraction is a very legit connection. One is always attracted to their subjects for a reason. They might be beautiful, or ugly, or just interesting and strange, but it is an attraction and a connection nevertheless.
My own eyes are for example attracted by beautiful male faces, dress or bodies. I find myself often turning to look at a handsome or well dressed man and stare at their pleasing features. I am honestly also mesmerized by a dancer's muscular body or other natural-looking physiques (body building I find unpleasant and unnatural). I also can feel their sexuality and attractiveness from their eyes, attitude or build. Yet, even though I will be jealous of their bodies, style or handsomeness, I have realized that it is the attraction of a visual artist and a human sensitive to beauty and not of necessarily of actual homosexual attraction and that is something I thing that the vast majority of people wouldn't understand. A common person, as Jason mentioned is hardwired to sexual attraction above pure visual (or other) pleasure and can't see a difference. Yet a beautiful human is attractive, both artistically and carnally and that's ok, even at the "highest level of Art", but the point is to be able to understand both and not exclude one or the other.
If you exclude sexuality from a nude human (which like I wrote is perfectly ok even if the subject isn't your type) or exclude artistry, then it becomes stale, dull and serves one single master, either the head or the groin, but both become pornography. Non passionate, clinical "artistic nudes" are intellectual pornography and quite boring unless its your fetish. Let us not forget after all that sexuality exists everywhere not unlike beauty. Don't tell me that a beautiful landscape, derelict building or interesting object has never brought thoughts of wild copulation inspired by it.