Women/men as appealing subjects

[Alexandra Tyng]

I can't help noticing, as figurative art enjoys a resurgence, that the young, attractive female is extremely popular as subject matter. Paintings of scantily clothed and nude young women are ubiquitous. Everywhere I look, they are around. I have a feeling they sell really well, too. Even portraits of clothed women attract lots of attention.

I'm wondering about men as subject matter. I see a lot of formal, professional portraits of men, but what about men as attractive and appealing subjects? I know they exist, but I don't see them as often as I do female subjects. Why is this?

Since this is not the Nudes Section, I am, of course, using clothed subjects to illustrate this thread. I'm posting two portraits from the same period (Renaissance), one of a woman, one of a man.

1) Federico Gonzaga, Duke of Mantua, by Titian, c. 1529

2) Lady With an Ermine, by Leonardo Da Vinci, c. 1485

Both of these people have, I think, some kind of appeal, or allure. I'm wondering whether this appealing quality has a lot to do with the artist's eye, i.e. the way the artist responds to the subject. And I'm wondering why I see so many more attractive women than attractive men as subjects. Do they sell better? If so, why?

Do you agree or disagree? Please feel free to post examples.

[Michele Rushworth]

I think it comes down to the same reasons why various people are on magazine covers. It's usually one of a few things: beauty, fame or power. And maybe it's partly because of who the artists have been over the past 1,000 years or so: mostly men, who perhaps would prefer to paint and look at paintings of beautiful women. Most of the art buyers historically have been men too. Opposites attract.

[Kimberly Dow]

What a great subject!

I had a very respected gallery owner tell me that most nudes are of and bought by women, believe-it-or-not.

Just my own personal belief ...
In the animal kingdom the males are the most colorful and beautiful. For us humans it is generally the females with different clothing, long/different hair styles, makeup, etc. In terms of doing a figurative and using clothing for props - women's clothing has a lot more options. When talking about nudes...women have a lot more rounded flowing shapes to their figures...where as men can be... startling?

I think using men for figuratives can be trickier than using women. Women can look perfectly acceptable nude or sensual - but with a man it is harder to hit that right without doing a 'tough guy' pose or an effeminate pose.

There is also just a generalized stereotype perhaps that beautiful women are...decorative in a way.

Im looking forward to seeing what others have to say. This is a great time to read this. Ive had a harder time getting male models over the years - men dont take it too seriously vs. women who are always flattered to be asked. But - I have several lined up right now - so Im looking forward to seeing what I can do.

[Ilaria Rosselli Del Turco]

Alex, Germaine Greer, intellectual, writer and feminist, has written a book on this subject, starting exactly from the same question.
As a woman, she claimed the right to appreciate male beauty as man do with young girls.
The book is called "The boy" and talks about the figure of the boy in history, mythology and art.
She basically blames moral for having deprived the modern world of male beauty, which was instead appreciated, as we know, in tha ancient world.
The book is a very interesting read
Ilaria

[Linda Brandon]

Hi Ilaria, I sped-read that Greer book while browsing in the Tate library when I was in London last year. (I would have finished the whole thing, too, had I not gotten into a heated argument with a book shop employee over whether Sickert was Jack the Ripper.)

(I digress easily, sorry.)

Two other interesting minds which tackle the subject of male/female nudity in art are Sir Kenneth Clark and Camile Paglia.

I agree with a lot of what Kim is saying here - it's much less artistically tricky to portray passively posed female nudes than male nudes. In fact, if I were tackling a male nude (so to speak) I would probably twist him around, or place a sword, stick, or something simlar in the painting for him to be doing something.

I'm a fan of fantasy/comic art and what interests me is that there is much more opportunity for nude/scantily clad female "action figures" in that genre than there are in the "fine art world". If I can locate some Frazetta images I'll post them later.

[Michele Rushworth]

Frank Frazetta was aiming at the huge audience of 15 to 20 year old males who read comic books, and he was terrific at it. If the "fine art" buying audience was made up of the same demographic I suppose we'd all be painting young females with Barbie doll figures, holding swords and scantily dressed in exotic outfits.

[Linda Brandon]

So are you telling me, Michele, that this demographic grows up to prefer paintings of nude or tastefully draped young females with Barbie doll figures standing or lying around instead of brandishing swords?

And we call that progress?


This is reminding me that I almost had a client talked into a portrait where she was riding a leopard but saner minds eventually prevailed, I'm sorry to say. I've always regretted this.

[Richard Bingham]

Originally Posted by Michele Rushworth

. . . Frazetta was aiming at. . . . 15 to 20 year old males . . . with Barbie doll figures . . .

"Fantasy" illustration entailed a bit more complex "market" demography 30-40 years ago than you describe, Michele, and Frazetta set the standard.

With all due respect, I don't find his female figures "Barbies". On the whole, they're much broader in the beam than the "Playboy/Penthouse" standardl for titillation, and look seriously buff enough to handle that spear or sword and slay a dragon, charging polar bear, or army of weird aliens, thank you. (yet they retain their sensual "allure"!)

At least equally represented, if not actually dominant in his ouvre is
her male counterpart, also scantily clad and revealing believable brawn, and perhaps is one answer to this question as to an aesthetic direction one might apply in paintings of "appealing" males . . . ?

(I've got my own problems . . . triple portrait of three teen-aged brothers . . .)

[Alexandra Tyng]

Originally Posted by Ilaria Rosselli Del Turco

Alex, Germaine Greer, intellectual, writer and feminist, has written a book on this subject, starting exactly from the same question.

Thanks for reminding me, Ilaria. I saw that book in Border's. Greer's other book, The Obstacle Race, shocked and fascinated me many years ago, and I still pick it up and read parts of it. Thanks also, Linda, for the other pertinent references. I think I have some interesting reading ahead of me.

I have to admit that I do not find paintings of young, attractive females(especially the ones with averted faces) particularly interesting. There has to be some psychological tension or emotion going on in the painting to catch my attention, then I see the woman as a human being and she becomes interesting. On the other hand, a portrait of a handsome young man (or older man) can grab my attention much more readily. Maybe this is because I am female--but if what Kim's gallery person says is true, that most of the buyers are women, then I really don't know.

[Mari DeRuntz]

My thoughts on this are not solid. I have to postulate that in relevant work: gender doesn't matter.

Gender is a darling of university art departments: none of which have raised an artist who, through the power of his/her work, has come close to the profound and timeless rendering of human form as the Italian Renaissance draftsmen or painters, or the Greeks.

The female nude is a part of a whole and as such, can only offer one perspective; it cannot embrace the reality of the whole. I recently sat through a 90-minute lecture "The Virgin and the Dynamo" where one feminist academician boxed the work of the murual artists of the American Renaissance (Cox, Blashfield, Vedder) in a feminist cage. Well, she selected examples to prove er theories, ignoring the body of work of all these artists.

Essentially, a great model is a scarcity, and is certainly worth stalking, changing your personal reality for. The anatomy will be determined by the nuances of their skeletons - in ways I cannot yet comprehend. If that model turns out to have a spirit - you are blessed. A spirit, intelligence, work-ethic - well, the best working artists I know all have this level of divine intervention.

A great model gives you Timeless and universal form.

Moments like this I remind myself why I keep a dayjob. Paying the bills should not determine our subjects anymore than the value of oil determines the wars this nation chooses to start.

I know, I am speaking of this reality, but then again, so does the gender-issue belong to this reality, which is far too temporal to matter even 15 minutes from now, let alone next year, or in 100 or 500 years.