Women/men as appealing subjects

[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.

[Marcus Lim]

I've been fascinated by the female physique since i was a little boy, and having read my uncle's copy of Hogarth's human anatomy lying about on his shelves then.
Over the years i have studied, compared between genders and even come to a conclusion after looking at Da Vinci's works - female nude goes beyond the mechanisms of limbs and torsos. So i reckon the reason why more female nudes are preferred in paintings, is not only one of an educated tradition, but artists look beyond the flesh and into the spirit of the female entity.

To me, i've come to experience the Tao of "gentility amidst steeliness" when i work with female figures (with whatever opportunity i can get), and honestly i find this quality something difficult to capture everytime...it's kinda like "now you capture it, now you don't". This is unlike drawing male nudes, where formula and technique alone seem to be adequate in capturing its life.
Right now i can only think of Sargent as the best person who understands and captured this very essence on his paintings very well. How artists like him managed to transcribe this enigmatic quality, remains a question for me to discover. Do you feel that way too?

[Alexandra Tyng]

Originally Posted by Marcus Lim

i've come to experience the Tao of "gentility amidst steeliness" when i work with female figures . . .and honestly i find this quality something difficult to capture everytime...it's kinda like "now you capture it, now you don't". This is unlike drawing male nudes, where formula and technique alone seem to be adequate in capturing its life.

Marcus, this is exactly what I'm trying to say--except from my perspective it is the male subject (clothed or nude) that has a greater degree of some (probably a different kind of) elusive quality. Not that I am disagreeing with you. I think your viewpoint is valid and elucidating.

Mari, I's like to know more what you mean when you refer to "gender" as not mattering, and being the darling of university art departments. I can't figure out whether you are referring to an opinion or stance on the subject of gender or on a feminist perspective, or whether you are saying that the gender of a really good (classically-porportioned) model is insignificant.

[Kimberly Dow]

Originally Posted by Mari DeRuntz

Moments like this I remind myself why I keep a dayjob. Paying the bills should not determine our subjects...

I can only speak for myself of course, but I find the discussion of what collectors are interested in fascinating and valid. Even if I did find it distasteful, it would be a small price to pay for the privledge of being able to paint full time. I am probably lucky in that I find using attractive females as models interesting and useful in telling my narratives. It perhaps more closely echos what the buying public wants so I dont have any agnst over not feeling as if I cant paint what I wish because there isnt a market.