Sub/Inverting the Ga(y)ze: An Exception to Phallocentric Scopophilia

Derek Kwan

982244990

HIS 367H

March 14, 2003

         Much has been entered into the discourse of images about the representation of women and the male gaze.  Little, however, can be found about the representation of men, whether in art imagery or pop culture imagery; particularly representations meant for the male gaze.   

            This photograph (figure 1) [1] comes from a genre of mid-20^th century photography commonly known as beefcake.  Such photographs depicted muscular young men in a variety of poses, often with objects (such as helmets, spears, sports equipment), and sometimes in groups (often shown wrestling).  This particular photograph was taken by one of the originators of the genre, Bob Mizer, who founded the Athletic Model Guild which featured young male models like the one shown here.  This photograph dates from circa 1950. Bud Counts, the model, is rather conscientiously posed upon a makeshift seat covered in draped fabric.  He is completely nude except for a small triangle of fabric covering his genitals known as the posing strap.  Buds body is on display to the camera, but his face stares off into the distance, ignoring the camera, while behind him is a projection of an ancient ruin, possibly Greek in origin. 

            Such a photograph is very common among this genre and was chosen for this exercise precisely because of its commonalities with so many other depictions of men in beefcake photography. 

            Images like this can be easily read as thinly veiled pornography, and as we shall see, this may not be far off from the truth.  Bob Mizers original intention in shooting photographs like these was to provide other photographers with catalogues of potential models- attractively posed- for the purposes of art photography.  He even published a magazine entitled Physique Pictorial. [2]   This, however, quickly turned into a mail-order business for body builders and other admirers of the male body- particularly homosexual men. 

            This of course was not the first time the male body was represented in Western art.  From Greek and Roman statues to contemporary magazines, there are many representations of the male form.  These images are often desexualized, or if sexualized, are intended for a female audience, or are meant to elicit the envy of the male gaze.  From marble sculptures of muscular Poseidon to the latest underwear ad, these images are by and large desexualized idealized portrayals of masculinity.  A great instance of this can be found in a phenomenon contemporary to this photograph: the iconographic portrayals and perceived personality of screen legend Rock Hudson:  He has sex appeal but the older fans want to mother him, young girls want to marry him, and men want to emulate him. [3] (See figure 2 [4] )

 

figure 2

            What marks this beefcake photograph then is that it is a sexualized representation of the male body, and furthermore, its a sexualized representation meant for male consumption.  This photograph therefore both subverts and inverts the normal scopophilic program of Western image viewing: that is the male subject gazing upon the female object [5] .

            Before embarking upon an elaboration of this sub/inversion, Id like to first discuss another closely related issue: that of legitimization.  It is possible to read from this photograph various attempts by the photographer to naturalize and normalize the content of the photograph so as to meet certain cultural and societal norms.  1950s America is not considered a bastion of tolerance and open-mindedness.  Laws were strict regarding nudity in general, not to mention male nudity in particular.  In fact Mizer was prosecuted for dissemination of obscene material [6] and served time in jail.  It is not surprising then that even with a technically non-nude model, Mizer needed to find ways around government censors and to legitimize his first amendment rights of expression. 

            The most obvious legitimizing technique he employed was to raise the level of his photographs to art photography.  Mizer makes several references to high art in this attempt.   Firstly the setting is an effort to situate the model within a temporal context- that of ancient Greece or Rome.  With a slide of ruins projected onto the background, the model is no longer Bud Counts models nude for Bob Mizer but instead becomes Bud Counts portrayed as a classical Greek statue.  Compare this photograph with an actual Greek statue from the Parthenon (figure 3) [7] .  Both are in a similar reclining position upon draped fabric.  By placing his model in Ancient Greece and posing his model thus, Mizer makes the excuse that this picture is but an emulation of an already accepted member in the canon of Western Art- nude Greek statuary. 

 

figure 3

            A closer look at this models pose brings another art tradition to mind- that of the nude in European oil painting.  Comparing this photograph with Lelys painting of Nell Gwynne (figure 4) [8] , we see even more of a resemblance in their poses.  This similarity in positioning also means a similarity in effect and purpose, as we shall see in a moment. 

 

figure 4

            Finally, Mizer attempts to circumnavigate his censors by adorning his models in posing straps.  On closer inspection of this picture, we realize that Buds posing strap is completely extraneous: he might as well be completely nude.  Besides the fact that a minimum of his body is covered by the garment, this garment itself is made to blend into his own flesh, to become one with his skin.  The effect is that he is indeed completely nude, and that is how we are meant to perceive him.  The posing strap dissolves completely and we do not see both what is covered and the covering.  He is completely nude to us.

            It is clear too that this models pose is constructed for our viewing enjoyment.  His body is presented in a way that shows itself to best effect.  It is not a natural pose, it is contorted to orient itself towards the viewer.  Bud is not leaning back: he holds himself stiffly erect, rigidly supporting himself with his right arm.  The intent is to appear natural, but there is nothing natural about the pose.  To quote from Bergers interpretation of Bronzinos Allegory of Time and Love: Her body is arranged in the way it is, to display it to the man looking at the picture.  This picture is made to appeal to his sexuality. (emphasis in the original) [9]   Buds placement is also constructed to elicit a response, and this response is also from male sexuality.

            Western phallocentric scopophilia places the male privileged gaze outside the image as the active subject and the female subordinate presence as an object inside the image [10] .  As Berger puts it: men act, women appear [11] .  Following this interpretation, the male is the one who holds the power- it is he who gazes at and acknowledges the female.  It is he who desires (or rejects) and objectifies the female.  This is even more evident in images of nudes.  To return to the painting by Lely, Berger writes: [Her nakedness] is a sign of her submission to the owners [King Charles II] feelings or demands& The painting, when the King showed it to others, demonstrated this submission and his guests envied him. [12]  

What then happens when both the subject and the object are male?  How does the gaze change, and how does it stay the same?

First of all, the model Bud, is still objectified in this photograph.  He is presented in exactly the same way that female nudes are presented: as supplicants and inert objects that receive the male gaze.  He displays his body so that we desire him.  The male gaze (in this instance the homosexual gaze), looks upon him and wishes to possess him.  Bud has merely usurped the role of the female and transcribed it upon himself.

This is not all that happens, however.  As with many oil paintings in the Western tradition which do portray men, we identify with them.  Berger discusses in his film version of Ways of Seeing the painting of Les Oréades by Bouguereau: three satyrs in the foreground watch as a crowd of oréades flee.  We identify ourselves with the satyrs as we too watch the women flee, just as they do: our viewpoints are one and the same.  In other pictures that feature men with women, it is implicit that the spectator-owner will in fantasy oust the other man, or else identify with him. [13] (my emphasis)  This case is a little bit different, as the male object of the picture is not reacting with a female object, but a similar effect is in place.  As the object in the photograph is male, we (as male gazers) identify with his being.  I would even argue that we envy him and his body.  Bud is presented to us as an idealized image: idealized body, idealized pose, idealized setting.  As William Mann quotes Douglas Sadownick in his essay on the overidealization of gay imagery: There are at least two different realms.  Theres the archetypal, with its idealizations and compulsion to worship, and the human, with its imperfections and foibles. [14]   We human male on-lookers realize our own physical bodily faults as we gaze upon an idealized and archetypal image of perfection: we envy Buds body, Buds godliness (which is emphasized with the allusions to Greek statuary). 

Within the homosexual gaze then, a subversion occurs because the object of the image is male, and displaces the normal male-subject/female-object dichotomy.  An inversion also occurs while the male gazer identifies with (and envies) the male object.  In this homosexual gaze these two processes occur simultaneously and create a new way of viewing.  In the previous example of the satyrs in Bouguereaus painting, we identify with the satyrs as we desire the women.  Here, however, both our identification/envy and our desire are directed upon the same object.

This sub/inversion then is unique within the context of Western imagery.  It is argued that women who look upon themselves are in fact mediating that gaze through a simulated gaze of the male: they look upon themselves as men would look upon them [15] , thereby transforming themselves into objects of someone elses gaze.  When women act, it is really women acting the way men would act: women still only appear.  In the homosexual gaze however, men both act and appear.  Indeed, it can be said that the process is reciprocal: in the mans gaze of the male object, he identifies the object, and the object in turn identifies him.  The act of man upon the appearance of man defines himself.

 

 

 

 

Annotated Bibliography

Art Images for College Teaching. Greek Architecture & Architectural Sculpture. Retrieved March 13, 2003 from http://arthist.cla.umn.edu/aict/html/ancient/GAS2/gas2010.html

            Resources site for images ranging throughout art history.  Some fairly good examples of Greek statues.

Athletic Model Guild. Introduction. Retrieved March 13, 2003 from www.athleticmodelguild.com

            Athletic Model Guilds website that includes information on the history of the company as well as auctions and sales of Mizers prints.  Had good information on facts surrounding the founding and operation of the company.

Berger, John.  Ways of Seeing.  NY: Penguin Books , 1977.

            One of the course texts that came in extremely handy because of clear concise arguments and pertinent content to my discussion.  I basically elaborated upon Bergers schemes of viewing

Big Kugels Photograhic.  Bob Mizer and the Athletic Models Guild.  Retrieved March 13, 2003 from http://www.bigkugels.com/content/AMGMizer.html

            Source of beefcake photograph of Bud Counts.

Mann, William J. Laws of Desire: Has our Imagery Become Overidealized?  from Looking Queer: Body Image and Identity in Lesbian, Bisexual, Gay, and Transgender Communities.  Ed. Dawn Atkins.  NY: Haworth Press, 1998

            This article discusses how idealization of the male body has become a problem within the gay community and how this representation of the male body is tied to AIDS.  He also discusses ways to come to terms with the problem.  I found it useful in describing how the homosexual gaze works.

Meyer, Richard.  Rock Hudsons Body from Inside/Out, ed. Diana Fuss.  NY: Routledge, Chapman and Hall, 1991. 

            This article charts the creation and disintegration of Rock Hudsons body through popular press and public representations and constructions that were fitted to his body: how his image was created by society.  This was particularly useful in grounding the debate in a temporal context of mid-century America.

Mulvey, Laura.  From Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema from A Critical and Cultural Theory Reader, ed. Antony Easthope and Kate McGowan.  Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1992. 

            Not about still images, but moving images.  The most succinct description I found of the male-dominated gaze situated within a Freudian psychoanalytic framework.