Edited by Steve Bamlett, Sunday, 23 Sept 2018, 20:25
A queer approach to
sexual preference labelling in art-history: looking at case studies in British
mid-twentieth century art: 7. Curating the Male Nude
The aim of this group of blogs is
to look critically at some of the publications relating to gay male artists in
the mid-twentieth century. This is in part to begin trawling for a dissertation
topic for my MA in Art History. My initial thoughts relate to focusing on one
of these artists, although their contexts include each other, their treatment
of male nudes in relation to the iconographic, contextual and stylistic
features which propose such a subject for art (for some of the choices this
will include photography as well as painting) and ‘queer theory’. This will
look at the issue of labelling of course, particularly at the important
terminology of ‘homosexuality’, which dominated the period. My hypothesis will
probably be that such a term was, and remains, a means of marginalising, even
to the point of negation, of such art. This blog looks at some reflections on the
curation of male nude art collections / assemblies.
Lucie-Smith’s final chapter is
about the nudes as ‘The Mirror of Homosexual Desire’ and uses the term
‘homosexual’ in a totally unproblematic way. He is aware of queer theory, in
its birth-pangs, but sees it, I think rather problematically and dismissively
for all involved as ‘an offshoot of feminism’ (174). But his position is more
nuanced than this erroneous reading would suggest. Queer theory is based on a
belief that the querying of norms in art – representational or otherwise –
creates the kind of crisis in signification, even if momentarily and
cumulatively, that produces change from beliefs that have become conventional
‘truths’ in the teeth and frame of those norms. i can empathise with the Lucie-Smith
of 1998 because at that time gay male identity needed prideful bolstering in
those early days of change in legislation and mores that yet has not come to
completion. Yet in 2018 we are much nearer. There is weight in queer theory’s
insistence that we spend far too long creating binary distinctions between
straight and gay, male and female when the issue for all is the regulation of
desire and belief
Lucie-Smith (1998:179) also points
out the immaturity of our early positions as gay men who used nude images
(sparingly) as an index of a desire that must be legitimated and justified. Of
the ‘characteristic art of the rainbow coalition’ (the union of left, feminist
and identity politics) he writes:
It does not
offer opportunities for the creation of new images of the male figure. Where male
imagery is present, as in some of the complex compositions of David Wojnarowicz
(1954 – 82), it is employed largely for its shock value, and is usually lifted
from another source, such as male pornographic magazines
Although the argument about
Wojnarowicz does not hold water held next to that Artist’s achievements in what
is quintessentially QUEER ART, his point is sound and made clearer through the
chapter. We do not make the male nude usefully into a possession of the gay
community. What he (187) sees as more hopeful (and I agree) than that aim is that
the: ‘meaning of male imagery seems to be becoming more ambiguous,… the male
nude as a subject for art is currently going through one of its periods of
radical transition.” This is a description, whether he calls it this or not, of
queer theory in praxis, much more so than some of his own appealing photographs
(John and Richard 1997) that bothy eroticise and, concomitantly, emotionalise
relationships to and between gay male nudes.
Where this book is still valuable
is in its perception that male nudity becomes radical when it is contextualised
outside the normative – alongside domesticity in Hockney for instance (142), or
in relation to the proud nudity of males with a disability (126f) or where gender roles themselves are
brought into question, without recourse simply to the substitutive conventions
of drag (132f). How much more however is done by two books representing more
recent exhibitions in Munich and Mexico City.
These modern
exhibitions are represented by two books / catalogues of exhibitions (three if
we account for the version of the second one that is written in French and
dealing with the exhibition when its focus was much more purely European[2]):
for the Leopold Museum in Vienna (2012) & the Museo Nacional de Arte
(MUNAL) (2014)[3].
The Munich exhibition probably
remains of the exhibition and exhibition-catalogue of most use for me if I go
with this subject and I have already used it to talk about male nudes in Ingres
and Etty in A843. Its curatorial focus however is strongly on literary-visual-political
discourses of masculinity with a stress on essays on sources in metamorphic
poetry (17ff), negotiated identity in space (27), sexual semantics (37f.) after
Winckelmann (an excellent 2 chapters 57 – 76 being on that influential figure
himself). It opens with issues of decency and ends with the sublimations that
made the nude the model par excellence of Nazi statehood. This curation has an
obvious intent – to cause introspection about the nature of German concern with
the politics of the male body.
The French Cogeval exhibition is
in part represented again in Mexico City but the contrasts between European and
South American iconology of the male nude is something much more than an
additive. Here masculinity is looked at in terms of construction of it in
worker politics of revolution as well as nationalistic state appropriations of
the nude (p. 44f followed by material on ‘the classical ideal nude’ – also appropriated
by the European right in the twentieth century). Nevertheless, this is a very
rich source for a consideration of the male nude as iconic image of embodied
notions – nature (175f), heroism (93f) and ‘truth’ (139ff.) are obvious ones.
But what of pain (207ff.) and desire (231ff.). Here other traditions are important
– especially in Spain. So I await a visit to the Ribera exhibition this week in
Dulwich. But Renaissance forms are also mighty. I’ve begun
to reflect on these but the Royal
Academy exhibition this year will help further. The Mexican book also
includes material that makes me joyous (especially on Ron Mueck).
All the best
Steve
[1]
Lucie-Smith, E. (1998) Adam: The Male
Figure in Art New York, Rizzoli International Publications Inc.
[2]Cogeval, G. et. al (2013) Masculin / Masculin: L’homme nu dans l’art de 1800 à nos jours Paris,
Musée d’Orsay
[3] Natter, G. & Leopold, E. (Eds.) Nude Men: From 1800 to the Present Day
Munich, Leopold Museum & Hirmer; AND Arteaga, A., Cogeval, G.,
Ferlier, O., Mantilla, A. & Rey, X. [trans Dodman, J., Huntington, T.,
Itzowitch, C. & Penwarden, C.) (2014) The
Male Nude: Dimensions of Masculininty from the 19th Century and
Beyond Mexico,Museo Nacional de
Arte & Paris, Musée d’Orsay.
A queer approach to: 7. Curating the Male Nude
A queer approach to sexual preference labelling in art-history: looking at case studies in British mid-twentieth century art: 7. Curating the Male Nude
The aim of this group of blogs is to look critically at some of the publications relating to gay male artists in the mid-twentieth century. This is in part to begin trawling for a dissertation topic for my MA in Art History. My initial thoughts relate to focusing on one of these artists, although their contexts include each other, their treatment of male nudes in relation to the iconographic, contextual and stylistic features which propose such a subject for art (for some of the choices this will include photography as well as painting) and ‘queer theory’. This will look at the issue of labelling of course, particularly at the important terminology of ‘homosexuality’, which dominated the period. My hypothesis will probably be that such a term was, and remains, a means of marginalising, even to the point of negation, of such art. This blog looks at some reflections on the curation of male nude art collections / assemblies.
This is timely because of the upcoming Royal Academy exhibition, at which the Guardian critic, Jonathan Jones, smiled, because of its aim ‘for “parity” of naked men and women’, raises the issue of how and why the nude is a hegemonic female or male form across various culture & societies. This question has been asked, hence for my first example of curation is a book (perhaps even the sneered-at form of the coffee-table book) from 1998 by the then ubiquitous, Edward Lucie-Smith, Adam.[1]
Lucie-Smith’s final chapter is about the nudes as ‘The Mirror of Homosexual Desire’ and uses the term ‘homosexual’ in a totally unproblematic way. He is aware of queer theory, in its birth-pangs, but sees it, I think rather problematically and dismissively for all involved as ‘an offshoot of feminism’ (174). But his position is more nuanced than this erroneous reading would suggest. Queer theory is based on a belief that the querying of norms in art – representational or otherwise – creates the kind of crisis in signification, even if momentarily and cumulatively, that produces change from beliefs that have become conventional ‘truths’ in the teeth and frame of those norms. i can empathise with the Lucie-Smith of 1998 because at that time gay male identity needed prideful bolstering in those early days of change in legislation and mores that yet has not come to completion. Yet in 2018 we are much nearer. There is weight in queer theory’s insistence that we spend far too long creating binary distinctions between straight and gay, male and female when the issue for all is the regulation of desire and belief
Lucie-Smith (1998:179) also points out the immaturity of our early positions as gay men who used nude images (sparingly) as an index of a desire that must be legitimated and justified. Of the ‘characteristic art of the rainbow coalition’ (the union of left, feminist and identity politics) he writes:
It does not offer opportunities for the creation of new images of the male figure. Where male imagery is present, as in some of the complex compositions of David Wojnarowicz (1954 – 82), it is employed largely for its shock value, and is usually lifted from another source, such as male pornographic magazines
Although the argument about Wojnarowicz does not hold water held next to that Artist’s achievements in what is quintessentially QUEER ART, his point is sound and made clearer through the chapter. We do not make the male nude usefully into a possession of the gay community. What he (187) sees as more hopeful (and I agree) than that aim is that the: ‘meaning of male imagery seems to be becoming more ambiguous,… the male nude as a subject for art is currently going through one of its periods of radical transition.” This is a description, whether he calls it this or not, of queer theory in praxis, much more so than some of his own appealing photographs (John and Richard 1997) that bothy eroticise and, concomitantly, emotionalise relationships to and between gay male nudes.
Where this book is still valuable is in its perception that male nudity becomes radical when it is contextualised outside the normative – alongside domesticity in Hockney for instance (142), or in relation to the proud nudity of males with a disability (126f) or where gender roles themselves are brought into question, without recourse simply to the substitutive conventions of drag (132f). How much more however is done by two books representing more recent exhibitions in Munich and Mexico City.
These modern exhibitions are represented by two books / catalogues of exhibitions (three if we account for the version of the second one that is written in French and dealing with the exhibition when its focus was much more purely European[2]): for the Leopold Museum in Vienna (2012) & the Museo Nacional de Arte (MUNAL) (2014)[3].
The Munich exhibition probably remains of the exhibition and exhibition-catalogue of most use for me if I go with this subject and I have already used it to talk about male nudes in Ingres and Etty in A843. Its curatorial focus however is strongly on literary-visual-political discourses of masculinity with a stress on essays on sources in metamorphic poetry (17ff), negotiated identity in space (27), sexual semantics (37f.) after Winckelmann (an excellent 2 chapters 57 – 76 being on that influential figure himself). It opens with issues of decency and ends with the sublimations that made the nude the model par excellence of Nazi statehood. This curation has an obvious intent – to cause introspection about the nature of German concern with the politics of the male body.
The French Cogeval exhibition is in part represented again in Mexico City but the contrasts between European and South American iconology of the male nude is something much more than an additive. Here masculinity is looked at in terms of construction of it in worker politics of revolution as well as nationalistic state appropriations of the nude (p. 44f followed by material on ‘the classical ideal nude’ – also appropriated by the European right in the twentieth century). Nevertheless, this is a very rich source for a consideration of the male nude as iconic image of embodied notions – nature (175f), heroism (93f) and ‘truth’ (139ff.) are obvious ones. But what of pain (207ff.) and desire (231ff.). Here other traditions are important – especially in Spain. So I await a visit to the Ribera exhibition this week in Dulwich. But Renaissance forms are also mighty. I’ve begun to reflect on these but the Royal Academy exhibition this year will help further. The Mexican book also includes material that makes me joyous (especially on Ron Mueck).
All the best
Steve
[1] Lucie-Smith, E. (1998) Adam: The Male Figure in Art New York, Rizzoli International Publications Inc.
[2]Cogeval, G. et. al (2013) Masculin / Masculin: L’homme nu dans l’art de 1800 à nos jours Paris, Musée d’Orsay
[3] Natter, G. & Leopold, E. (Eds.) Nude Men: From 1800 to the Present Day Munich, Leopold Museum & Hirmer; AND Arteaga, A., Cogeval, G., Ferlier, O., Mantilla, A. & Rey, X. [trans Dodman, J., Huntington, T., Itzowitch, C. & Penwarden, C.) (2014) The Male Nude: Dimensions of Masculininty from the 19th Century and Beyond Mexico, Museo Nacional de Arte & Paris, Musée d’Orsay.