Here’s a slightly larger reproduction of Sailors and Floozies. I don’t know about that middle floozy. She’s wearing more makeup than the Joker, and both arms and face look awfully masculine.
As I sat here squinting at Dio’s links, and yearning for a larger version…I knew your link would be blocked here at work before I even clicked it.
Sent it off to a straight male friend, who felt it was reminiscent of the Saucy postcards of Donald McGill, and of the work of his favorite painter, Tamara de Lempicka mentioned above. He thought it depicted sailors trying to get into girl’s panties. Then he read the Wiki on it. So he looked again, and said, “Well, it’s supposed to be about a gay couple, must be the two on the right, but they are trying to pick up girls, so unless it’s just because they have tight pants on, I’m not seeing the big controversy. It’s sort of like McCarthy seeing Communism in everything.” He said he got no “gay” vibe off of it until he read the Wiki, and even then he said he really had to force himself to see anything. But he really liked the one girl’s ass. And as for the “swishy” guy? He said he thought the guy was thinking, Please just take a cigarette and don’t beat me up, you drunken idiot. Didn’t see him as swishy, just rich and stylish.
Gee, I see a lot of connection in the Sailors and Floozies…that red-headed sailor to the left just wants to put his head on that girl’s bosom and stay there forever, while she’s trying to squirm away. Granted, the girl with the passed out sailor with his hand on his junk looks like she’s just checking to make sure he’s out cold before she robs him. But nobody in any of those pictures is attractive or sexy or seductive, and while skirts are clinging to thighs quite nicely, the girls all have average size boobs. I guess only the voluptuous are attractive?
Your friend is not too swift on the uptake.
The sailor with his head on the one floozy’s bosom is drunk. They’re all drunk. The floozy lying on top of the one who is lying on his back and rubbing his crotch (nothing homoerotic about that, huh?) is a MAN, baby.
I don’t see the point of denying the homoeroticism. The artist himself freely admitted to it.
Incidentally, the homoeroticism lies primarily not in the action of the images, but in how the artist views the figures. The artist is ogling the man ass and crotch bulges and has no interest in the women.
She’s not a man…I know a woman who looks exactly like her, even down to the frizzy blonde hair! Startled me when I opened the link! And so what if they are drunk…does that mean he isn’t really happy where his head is right then? Does them being drunk mean they weren’t interested in the women at all? And Tom of Finland did much better crotch bulges. These wouldn’t even perk anybody up in the Are You Aware Of Penises? thread!
The fact that they’re drunk means it’s ridiculous to read loving or erotic interpretations into the fact that a guy is passed out on an ugly girl’s tits.
And if that one in the middle is not a man, she’s close enough for government work. She’s certainly masculine which makes the distinction academic.
I think we are getting too bogged down in exact interpretations of every single detail.
The man on the left in Sailors and Floozies may very well be happy with his head in the floozy’s bosom. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t homoerotic overtones to the work.
Well, the woman in the middle of “Sailors and Floozies” COULD be a West German “female” athlete! but it really looks like a guy in a wig and makeup. Huge chin, look at those arms!
With those boobs? She has a strong jaw, that’s for sure. And she’s not pretty like the one you think is ugly. Sigh. I’m not denying that some portions of the paintings could be thought of, by someone who is inclined to look for it, to be a little more homoerotic than average. But it’s not so intense as to slap you across the face like the Tom of Finland stuff. They are paintings that are not designed to flatter anyone, male or female, and they are less focused on female assets than we are perhaps used to in this society where every comic book character has huge tits. But my first, second and third reaction to the fleet painting was NOT, ooh, boy, that’s gonna appeal to gay men!
Maybe we need to define “homoerotic” more clearly.
Just because those figures are female, it doesn’t necessarily follow that they can’t be part of the homoeroticism of the work. Note, for example, that the only aspect of the females in the painting that is at all eroticized are the buttocks - never the breasts or the faces. Which is not to say that any depiction of a female’s ass is by definition homoerotic, but it’s interesting that there are no specifically female assets (so to speak) that are treated as erotic.
It’s certainly not a loving look, by any means. There’s definitely an element of distaste to his expression, but also interest. Note how he’s leaning in towards the sailors, and turning his body to face them. Check out that little smile he’s sporting. His expression is very predatory. Note also, that he’s not a passer-by being accosted, like the women in the foreground. He’s sitting on the wall with them. There’s clearly something he wants from the sailors, otherwise, he wouldn’t be there, but also something about them that he finds repellent. Perhaps a combination of class condescension and internalized homophobia. He definitely reads as a particular gay stereotype to me: the effete, self-loathing socialite. It’s a masterful little piece of characterization. And possibly, a bit of an author insert.
It’s a painting, not a life photograph. His hand didn’t “happen to fall” across his buddy’s lap, it was put there because the artist wanted it there. The fact that his buddy doesn’t seem to notice is also telling. Most straight guys are pretty acutely aware of when there’s a dude’s hand anywhere near their crotch. The composition of these two men comes across as very intimate. If you took two figures in almost identical positions and transcribed them into a bed together, it would instantly read as a gay couple shortly after sex. Obviously, that’s not the literal image, but the thread is about the implicit homosexuality of the depiction, not the explicit homosexuality of the depiction.
I think you’re reading “diminishment” a little too literally, here. It doesn’t just mean that the women have small breasts, it means that the women aren’t being presented as sexual creatures. The central female figure in the painting is the skinny woman who is turning away from the males in the picture with a look of disgust. Her two friends aren’t as disapproving, but note that they’re also not engaged with the male characters in any way. They’re turning towards each other, and are ignoring the men in the painting entirely.
I think it’s also significant that none of the women are particularly attractive. The first woman is bony and severe, her friend whose face is visible in quarter profile is pretty fat, and the third friend who we see straight on has, I’m sure, a wonderful personality. Contrast with the men who, while not movie star adonis types, are still virile and attractive fellows.
Lastly, we have the two women who are interacting with the men. These characters are sexualized, but as I noted above, in a pretty androgynous way. No element of specifically female sexuality is presented to the viewer. We just see their buttocks. Also, while they’re interacting with the males, it’s in positions with a lot of tension: one woman trying to pull a man away, the other pushing him back. There’s no closeness between them and the men, no intimacy. In fact, both positions are rejecting intimacy. Whereas the male figures are all in some intimate position with another male: arm around the shoulder, hand in the lap, or sharing a smoke. Again, not overtly homosexual, but when all the male-male relations are intimate and close, and all the male-female relations are distant or non-existant, it starts to communicate a clear subtext.
Yes, that’s pretty clearly the intended surface imagery. We’re talking about the subtext, here, which is how the surface imagery has been interpreted and presented by the artist.
Art interpretation is enormously subjective, so it’s not surprising that different people see different things in the same work of art. That said, I find it kind of surprising that anyone cannot see the clear look of interest and attraction (NOT love!) from the guy in the suit. I don’t think the artist could have made that more explicitly gay without taking the guy’s pants off.
When Cadmus first displayed this painting, the “implicit homosexuality” of the image caused a public outcry that led to the removal of the painting from the gallery exhibiting it. This was in 1934. This was also at the beginning of Cadmus’s career, too, so it’s not like he already had a reputation for this kind of thing. How do you think the audiences in 1934, who had no preconceived notion or background knowledge about the painting, who were seeing it for the first time ever, and who probably had never heard of the artist, were able to see the homosexual imagery in this painting?
Sort of, yes. It’s not that a gay man is going to focus on the erotic aspects of the men, and ignore the erotic aspects of the women. It’s that the erotic aspects of the women have been filtered to remove any aspects of their sexuality which would be unappealing to a gay man. Yes, two of the women in the picture have cute butts. None of the women in the picture (from what we can see of them) have cute breasts, or cute faces. That’s what’s meant by homoerotic in this case.
Good luck with that, but I don’t think the results are going to be particularly meaningful.
Fuck it, Miller. Sign me up for the newletter. You’ve done it again. I’ll put your cds on my shelf next to Sister Wendy’s.
The hat on the floozy on the far left … I’m thinking scrotum with a limp, fat cock folded over it. Prolly a bit of a Mary Sue on Camus’ part.
I suspect that sailors in the '40 s souls have been keenly sensitive to any suggestion of cannibalism … Er … Homosexuality. More than they are now.
Subjective, indeed! Where you see him leaning in, I see him leaning away! (if the tree between them is a straight-ish line, he’s definitely leaning back). And that predatory smile? I see it as the same grimace I make when I find something sadly distasteful. Here he sits, on a fine day, watching the girls so by (yes, his look COULD be directed towards the girls as they walk by), maybe accompanied by his elderly aunt walking the dog, when along come two sailors, quite drunk, and the one’s girlfriend. They collapse onto the wall near the young man, and the one guy passes out and slumps over. As his girlfriend tries to pull him to his feet so they can continue on their way, the second drunk asks the man for a cigarette. He holds out the pack while the guy regales him about the party they just left (at 10am!), not noticing that his buddy has flung his arm out. He gives a half-smile grimace in response and hopes they will leave soon…he’s already missed out on one group of young ladies, who are now being accosted by two more drunks! He’s beginning to think coming to the park was a mistake…there are drunken sailors and teenagers everywhere, and now the dog is tangling up this girl’s legs. Next time he takes Auntie out for some air they will walk over by the lake.
You can’t count on the perspective as to the relative closeness of anyone…the girls (who are linking arms, it seems) are in full stride but also toe-to-toe with the stopped men. And while the men might seem virile (as do most men) I don’t find much attractive about them.
And why wouldn’t it be meaningful to get opinions from people with no pre-conceived notions about this work? Are their opinions less valid? I do wish some of the others who agreed with me that they just weren’t seein’ it would come back in to comment! I’m feeling very much like the boy in The Emperor’s New Clothes here!
Kittenblue, I have a new habit lately of dick-riding Miller, and I’m trying to shake it, but he keeps coming with sweeter and sweeter posts!
But! I will confess that I saw it as you did before posters in this thread influenced me to see it differently. And I *still *think your interpretation is as right as anyone else’s. I dare to speak for the artist and say that I think he would be pleased to see different takes on his work.
ETA: Because, I think paintings change depending on who is looking at it and what we bring to it. And maybe an artist fails on some level if he is so John Henry with his intent that no one else gets the chance to bring their own view to the work.
I’m always fascinated by the different interpretations people on this board come up with for things that I find fairly straightforward. Wish I could find a cite, but numerous times in threads about song lyrics or even episodes of The Office people will come up with a totally (to my mind) off the wall spin on some line or phrase or facial expression that just boggles my mind! I wonder sometimes how they get along in daily life when they seem to miss something obvious, or leap all over a slightly odd turn of phrase. I remember, not on this board, a lengthy and spirited discussion of why a favorite folksinger had used the word fist instead of hand in one song. People went on for DAYS about the symbolism and hidden meanings and latent rage implicit in his choice. I couldn’t comment in the thread, but the whole time I was reading it I was screaming in my head, “Because “fist” rhymed, and “hand” didn’t, you twits!” No one came up with that option, they were so enamored of their theories, even trying to pull biographical info on the artist into the discussion. Funny, I met the artist last year and totally forgot to ask him about that!
I even get into semantic arguments with my boss when she finds some piece of corporate policy that she doesn’t like, and she will try mightily to find a loophole based on the use of the word “of”. She wants so much to find a way to keep doing what she’s been doing, even if they say it is now wrong, that she will bend logic to fit her mold.
I can also envision, getting back to the whole Jerome Robbins thing, how he might want to distance himself from any homosexual interpretation of the painting, which hadn’t actually been seen for ten years by this point, according to this account:
*1934: “The Fleet’s In!” is painted by Paul Cadmus, an artist working for the Public Works of Art Project. The PWAP is combined into the WPA. The painting is selected by the WPA for inclusion in a show of PWAP art at the Corcoran Gallery of Art. The exhibition opens with the painting included. Following the publication of an adverse letter to the editor in The Evening Star (Washington, D.C.) and subsequent outcry, Secretary of the Navy Claude A. Swanson orders Assistant Secretary of the Navy Henry Latrobe Roosevelt to remove the painting from the show. It is either confined to H. L. Roosevelt’s home, the “Navy Department brig,” or the Secretary of the Navy’s bathroom (depending on which story you believe)…
1944: The painting is the inspiration for Jerome Robbin’s ballet “Fancy Free.”
1980: A group interested in mounting a Cadmus retrospective threatens to sue the Alibi Club unless the painting is returned to public hands. The Navy takes title to the painting, though it may have remained at the Club on loan for a time.
1981: The Navy has the painting, now in poor condition, restored.
1982: The painting circulates to three or four venues in a Cadmus retrospective. It is the first public exhibition of the painting since 1934.
1983-1985: The painting spends some time in storage, but by 1985 it is on public exhibit at The Navy Museum, Washington Navy Yard, except when it is on loan to other museums.
1993: Female visitors to The Navy Museum on two separate occasions complained that the painting depicts sexual harassment.*
So the painting (which, it seems WAS a commissioned work, so perhaps not in his usual style?) goes up on exhibit, and someone complains. We don’t know who, can’t find the original letter referenced anywhere, so it could have been some old biddy or someone with issues…but the admiral gets a bit panicky and starts thinking, hmm, maybe those pants are a bit too tight, and yanks it from display…a move Cadmus later says he is eternally grateful for, since the publicity made him famous. Ten years later, Robbins, who doesn’t want to be outed as gay, nervously tries to sidestep a renewal of any controversy by downplaying the connection. Six years later, he’s hauled before the house UnAmerican Activities Committee anyhow.
Oh, and this link shows a wider view of the painting, in which you can see that the hidden sailor with the cute butt is leaning over the wall with a girl, and the blonde man has his foot up on the wall, so perhaps he is leaning towards the two drunks a bit. I’m sure there will be some comments about the homoeroticism of his unseen spread legs, but I still think he finds the two distasteful.
And isn’t it funny that women found it offensive to women in 1993?
I’m pretty much where you are. I didn’t see the “look” at first glance.