Women/men as appealing subjects
 

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

"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 . . .) :bewildere

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.

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.

The essence of female physique is a fleeting spirit
 

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?

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.

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.

I find this very interesting, too. I like to know what people like, and why, because I think the reasons can help us understand things about how and what we paint. The artist's relationship with the buying public can be very instructive, as long as the artist doesn't keep churning 'em out in response to the gallery people saying "can you paint more of those?" without listening to his or her inner voice.

Kim, I want you to know that the way you paint females is very intersting to me because of the emotion and the psychological tension and ambiguity. Your subjects become not just another beautiful woman, but a person also, and that is what grabs my attention. In fact I am attracted to the same things when I paint portraits of women. It is the female form objectified as a desirable, beautiful icon that I find less interesting, though I can get into drawing it as a learning exercise.

I hope the collectors in Chicago will find your paintings fascinating.

Sorry, Alex, I was not very articulate, and as I haven't posted on a forum in quite some time, I forget my manners and my post does read like a manifesto. I'll try to remember that this is not my sketchbook.

I do mean to say that in relevant, timeless Art, the gender of the subject doesn't matter.

The Leonardo you posted is timeless and powerful - not because the sitter was a woman. Look at his drawings of landscapes, the weather, a copse of trees. It might not be fair to use your example because he is one of immortals. But honestly, in my favorites, both historical and contemporary, the gender of the subjects doesn't impact my response to the piece at all.

Kim, I only meant that historically, great figurative art is and remains independent of the taste of the patron. This is not to say I don't pine for the days of the truly loaded patronage of the Church, or the State or the Monarchy.

It is my understanding that we're not to post nudes in this section: should we splinter the topic and explore examples under life drawings? Marcus, are you familiar with Sargent's drawings of male nudes? Very ethereal, profound and beautiful things.

See, now I have to refresh my memory on how to post an image! Because I can think of so many paintings that blow me away no matter if the form is male or female.

And from my side of the easel, I've had mesmerizing models from both genders.

Hi Mari, we may not have met before this thread, but i guess i found another soulmate, finding that "lady in the lake" quality about human figures!

Yes i've seen Sargent's male nudes, and happen to have his book on this. Looking at his draughtsmanship in general, i saw his ability to capture that "gentility amidst steelness" Taoist quality in his works - his ability to capture the essence of women. And having this ability he passed on the same quality onto his male nudes.

Off the thread discussion, i reckon it's this quality on his male nudes, that got a rumour that Sargent's got gay inclinations - if not he was a gay! Of course to me, that doesn't ring true to my opinion.

Thank you Alex! I hope the Chicago folks find them fascinating as well. :) Im with you all the way - I want to tell a story, or at least hint at one. For me, they are complete novels...but I try not to give away too much of it. Of course, that could be a symptom of spending way too much time in the studio alone. Once those things start speaking to you, it might be time for a vacation. ;)

One of the reasons I find it fascinating what collectors buy is that I rarely get to meet mine. Many galleries wont give that information up for fear of selling direct. So there is a natural curiosity. Plus - a lot of planning and work go into these...so when they are gone I do wonder what kind of home they ended up in. Certainly not as traumatic as giving up a child (not that I know) ...but perhaps akin to finding a home for a beloved pet? I know it sounds really hokey, but I miss my paintings a little when they are sold.

Interesting thread Alex,

I appreciate everyones thoughts on the subject.

I think it is natural for mails to appreciate the curves of a females body, as is natural for a female to appreciate the curves of the mail body.

I think it goes beyond appreciation for a artist. We, the artist, practically absorb every detail of our subject not just the shape. We even go as far as capturing the mood of our subject. The translucency and the shimmer of skin is important to an artist as the artist learns to correctly represent it.

Why do individuals buy the nude drawings and paintings? Various reasons. I would not attempt to touch on all the reasons rather I will attempt to give the main reason. The work that we do and when done well unveils so much to the viewer.

You the artist are a creator and you have created something. The viewer appreciates what you have created and many attempt to understand your creation and in detail. The typical question I would hear is "How did you do that?" Then my favorite statement i love to hear is "I must have it!"

The artist. The creator. Sound like something from the Bible.

Wish you all the best.

mischa
Walk the narrow path for many search but a few find it and even fewer, when they find it, stay on it.

Kim, what's the Chicago connection? Are you moving there, or do you have a new gallery there?

Michele, I posted about it under Member News. I just tried to post a link, but my connection is slow today and keeps trying to disconnect me.

Absolutely! Faced with that dilemma, my "inner voice" always says "Go for the gold!!" (cackles evilly) ;)

:) Richard :exclamati

Mari, I couldn't agree with you more on this. I truly believe (and see with my own eyes) that art which stands the test of time is certainly not dependent on the gender of the subject to give it power.

I started this thread not to argue that point, but because I was wondering why I see much more new figurative work (and sometimes portraits that border on figurative) of the "lovely young woman" type. People come in all shapes and sizes, and I find a variety of people interesting to paint. I'm actually looking for individuality more than classic beauty.

I also started this thread because I was struck by the way that Andrew Wyeth painted Helga and Siri in secret, over and over. To him it was very important, even essential, to have the complete artistic freedom to do this, and these obviously were very intense experiences for him. Somehow he knew his wife would not react well to the secrecy, but she might not have liked knowing, either. Somehow, he managed to continue painting whomever he wants to paint. Many male artists I know use the same femal model over and over and this is accepted practice. If you reverse the roles, the picture looks different. I suspect women artists would be given a harder time for doing the same thing, or even for painting male models alone in her studio, etc. I personally would like to have total artistic freedom in this, I am determined to have it, but it is problematic.

Alex, no response except a smile. There is so much relevancy to the issues you've raised that I'll attempt to gather my thoughts and be able to post some model stories along these lines by the time you return.

Bon Voyage!