Visual art was a male preserve for so long that it would be surprising to see any acknowledgment of female desire with men as objects - until very recently. (Tamara de Lempicka gets a pass because she, or her work at least, appeared to be bisexual.)
I am just not seeing it, folks. I see a painting of a bunch of drunk sailors accosting people in a park. One has passed out drunk and his girl is trying to pull him to his feet while his buddy is getting sneered at by a civilian male. Three girls are walking and laughing as a group of sailors tries to pick them up…the skinny flat-chested girl is turning her nose up at the louts, while her heavier, full-busted friend and the one with the dark hair are laughing at her and the guys. In the background is one guy leaning over the brick wall. Everyone’s got tight pants or tight skirts except the old lady with the dog. It’s a loud, sexy, casual painting…but I’m not seeing a bunch of gay boys or any butt-slapping that is out of the ordinary. I could see that the Navy might not like their sailors depicted as drunken, rude louts…but I’m not getting a gay vibe at all. Now if all the guys were in a bar and there were no women present that they are trying to pick up…then maybe.
Thank you, Reno Nevada! That was what I was thinking…it’s sexy, but not gay! And that tight skirt on the girl pulling up the drunk guy? If that isn’t female sexualization…I didn’t even really notice the tight pants, and the crotch-bulges didn’t stand out to me, either…and I’m a straight girl who should notice if things like that are emphasized! I think everyone is looking at it too hard, trying to build their case (oooh, shades of the Christian right!) and they are reading in things that just aren’t there.
Is that a lighter? It looks like a flask to me.
Having said that: In the Navy…
No, it’s not projection. It’s intentionally homoerotic. That was the artists raison d’etre. Look at some of the other pieces in the link I posted above. Nobody was imagining things about this one. Cadmus was a more subdued Tom of Finland. Look at the guy on the bench with his arm between the other guy’s legs. Straight guys dont do that.
You’re kidding, right? She’s wearing a dress, and you think it’s ambiguous? True she’s wearing bobby socks and low-heeled shoes, which might imply a teenager, but come on! Her body is bent at an awkward angle, by an artist who is taking liberties with proportions, and her butt isn’t as round as the woman next to hers, so you think that makes her a boy? And her hair is styled in a fashion of the day for women!
I’m surprised no one has deconstructed the middle woman in the group of three who is obviously a Big Girl…just look at those ankles and feet. But…she has womanly boobs! What are we to make of this?
Are you talking about the passed out guy on the wall whose arm is flung across (not between) his buddy’s legs? Or were you referencing another painting? And I did look at a lot of other pieces by Cadmus…the other one, Shore Leave, has lots of women and drunk sailors. I think it is possible that, despite being gay, the artist could paint things that weren’t homoerotic. To suggest otherwise is insulting to all gays, isn’t it? To imply that their sexuality limits their skills?
I didn’t say the paintings were gay because he was, I say it because he specialized in homoeroticism. He said it himself. No, it’s not insulting to gay people (and “gays” is not a noun) to point out that an intentionally homoerotic piece of art is homoerotic.
I misunderstood you, then. I thought you were implying that since he spcialized in homoerotic art, that everything he painted had to be homoerotic in some way…that he was incapable of painting anything that wasn’t intended to be homerotic. Which, when you start thinking about it, is the big problem, then…did he INTEND a painting about men and women flirting with each other to be homoerotic, or is it just the by-product of his style? Because judging by the lengths some people are going to to find that in this painting, any painting by any painter will be homoerotic if just the curve of a butt or tight pants does it for you.
So the artist’s nudes of women are homoerotic for lesbians, right? Is that because Cadmus specializes in homoerotic art? Or would even a straight artist’s nudes of women be homoerotic, then? Even if that wasn’t their intent??
And isn’t it possible to specialize in something, and still produce, over a lifetime career, works that don’t fit in that speciality?
Apologies to the OP for getting so off the topic of Jerome Robbins.
Not to mention the YMCA…
Yes, absolutely. But this ain’t it.
Why not, WhyNot? Aside from the emphasis on tight pants, what makes The Fleet’s In more homoerotic than any other painting depicting the interaction between a group of men and women?
Well, let’s start with…do you have any evidence that Cadmus was breaking his usual mold here? Was it the start of a radical new style for him? Was it a job hired out by another person or firm that would have wanted him to transmit their message, not his usual one?
I think the things that make this piece homoerotic have been pointed out. The emphasis on buttocks and bulging crotches, the loving look between two men, the placement of arms and spread legs signaling sexual release and post-coital relaxation happening between two men, the female disgust of sexual advances, the diminishment of uniquely feminine signals of sexuality…there’s lots there.
I think this is an unreasonable question. Appreciating art doesn’t mean pinning down the artist’s intention. We are supposed to project when taking in art, aren’t we? If kittenblue doesn’t see homoerotic overtones, then that doesn’t mean she is wrong. Asking her to provide evidence that Cadmus was ‘breaking his usualy mold’ doesn’t seem fair.
That said, initially, I didn’t notice any homosexual overtones, but once pointed out by some in this thread, I’m seeing it. There does seem to be a bit of…chemistry between the snooty civilian and the sailor with the cigarette. If others hadn’t pointed out homosexual leanings, I would have interpretted the snooty one to have just been tolerating the sailor with the cigarette with a bit of disdain.
It was in direct response to her earlier post:
She brought up intent as a criterion, not me, and suggested that a painter might be painting outside his “specialty”. I said sure, but not this time. She asked why not, and I asked why she thought it might be, giving a couple of potential reasons one might think an artist was working outside his specialty.
Hope that summed it up accurately. I think it was entirely fair.
She asked *questions *about the artist’s intentions. Which is one of the cool things about art, (for the extreme layperson like me) …the questions it sparks. So, I don’t think your question was really fair, but hey, questions don’t have to be fair on a message board. We’re just chewing the fat, not curing cancer.
I don’t see Mr. Long-Hair as “snooty.” I see him as swishy. Very swishy. Given that it’s the '30s, and certain overt styles hadn’t been invented yet, I can’t imagine how he could have been portrayed as any more swishy. I do wonder if there’s a problem with seeing this small reproduction of the painting on a computer screen. Maybe if we could see the actual painting, what some people seem to see as a sneer would be clearly more of a simper, as I interpret it. Anyway, there’s little ambiguity on Seaman Gotta-Light-Fella’s expression. Mr. Long-Hair is clearly lighting his fire in more ways than one.
Hee! Agreed. I do see the ‘spark’ between them now, but like I said…it had to be pointed out to me.
I just think it’s kind of silly to deny any intentional homoeroticism in the painting when the artist specialized in homoeroticism. It’s subdued, but it’s there. The emphasis is on the male sexual anatomy and suggestive looks and poses, while the erotic aspects of the females are deemphasized or non-existent.
Here are the other two pieces in the Sailor Trilogy, by the way:
Shore Leave
Sailors and Floozies
Note how the emphasis is always on the male sexual anatomy, never on the women and that there is never any real erotic chemistry or connection between the men and the women. The women are the pursuers, but the men seem disinterested.
Of course I don’t have any evidence that this is a change in his style. I looked at the painting as a stand-alone piece. I shouldn’t have to know the artist’s background or sexuality or even the history of the piece to be able to figure out what I’m seeing. And what I’m seeing seems to be totally different from what you see. For example…all this talk of the emphasis on butts and cocks…there are two full male butts, and two crotches that are emphasized but hardly bulging. I think one of the attractions of a sailor’s pants was that they were form-fitting, so depicting them that way hardly seems even noticeable. As for the other butts…they belong to women, and it seems that all the homoeroticism everyone is talking about is male-on-male, so we can count them out.
Now, on to the “loving look”…I see a loud and drunk sailor bumming a smoke off a well-dressed civilian, who offers the pack, but still has a look of distaste on his face. I see nothing loving or inviting.
The post-coital placement of arms and legs? The guy is passed out drunk on a wall, his girl is trying to haul him to his feet and his arm just happens to fall across (not between, Dio!) his buddy’s legs, which to me is an indication of his unconsciousness, not some sexual image, especially since his buddy doesn’t even seem to notice.
Female disgust? One girl is turning her nose up while her two friends are happily enjoying the attention and her distaste. Wouldn’t you be a bit off-put if you are out for a nice walk with your girls and two very friendly sailors are blocking your path, probably with a loud “Ladies…how we doing this afternoon?” And the girl who is pushing the guys face away? Seems like that could be interpreted as the guy getting a bit fresh and her putting him in his place…but she ain’t running away!
The diminishment of female sexuality? Are you kidding me? Women come in all shapes and sizes. Just because one girl is flat-chested and stand-offish doesn’t mean a thing…the girl next to her is lush and curvy and friendly! And the woman pulling the man up? Did you see the ass on her? How could you miss it! That skirt is as curve-enhancing as the pants on the sailor…but you totally discount that as not being sexual? All of the skirts (except, of course, the old lady with the dog’s) enhance the legs of the women…one AA-cup and you discount all the rest?
Have you ever watched those old buddy movies with Frank Sinatra and the lot…the ones where they are all sailors or GI’s on liberty and they are all happy and drunk and putting their arms around one another, especially when trying to pick up girls in a group? That’s what this painting reminds me of…that type of buddy picture.
Do you see how we are seeing totally different things here? Where you see a loving look I see barely concealed distaste. Are you seeing the loving look because you want/need/were told to find something that implies a homosexual attraction?
I’m just saying that if you were told that “this is homoerotic because that’s what Cadmus paints” you will probably search and search what is essentially a caricature until you find something, like a disembodied hand near a disembodied butt, that you can squish into that mold. But if you see the work of art on its own, without that preconceived notion or background knowledge, you probably won’t see it. And if you are a gay man, the cute butts on the guys will attract you more than the fine booty on the woman. As I possibly misinterpreting what you mean by homoerotic?
I think I’m going to print out that picture and show it to friends, without telling them any of this discussion, and see what kind of reactions it gets.