From the beginning of the artform, photography has had the unique ability to capture a person exactly as they are in front of the lens. As the ability to create photographs transferred from the extremely wealthy, to the artistic, to the average person, the types of people in standing in front of and behind the camera have changed drastically. One social minority group that transcended wealth, status, and race and therefore can be seen throughout the evolution of photography is that of homosexual men. Whether the photographs were taken in secret or marketed to vast audiences, one can track the trajectory of photography’s growth through the intentional capture of homoerotic male figures.
The earliest type of homoerotic figure came with the popularity of Daugerreotype portraits. The very country where Louis Daugerre patented his revolutionary process was historically liberal when it came to the topic of homosexuality. While still frowned upon, sodomy had been legal in France since 1791; most other western countries in the 19th century were enforcing harsh anti-gay laws. Portraits of men sharing a tender moment were not uncommon, though they do not necessarily equate to depictions of gay men. It is possible that many of the portraits which look quite homoromantic in hindsight are merely images of men joined together by fierce, platonic friendship. As David Deitcher writes in Dear Friends, the relationships between these men may well remain a mystery, but when these friends affectionately lean their heads together, when they embrace, they reveal their feelings as well as their complicity. As it became easier for aspirational amateur photographers to acquire equipment and set up portrait studios of their own, it would be more likely that these men were sharing a true intimate moment, perhaps photographed by a friend rather than a distant, clinical professional. The photographs may be difficult to categorize today, but as Borhan writes, “homosexuality allusively, but boldy and resolutely, became part of the emerging history of photography” (p17). These portraits, however, only hint at an underlying sexuality and desire. To the average observer, these could be forgiven as non-sexual love. In other photographic circles, certain artists held a concurrent history that was much more directly sexual: the first forays into the male nude.
Many early nudes, both male and female, were artists’ references. Sometimes photographed by the artists themselves, other times found in publications such as Le Nu esthétique (The Aesthetic Nude), these photographs could be much more openly erotic, often times worshipping the male form. One such artist who used these male nudes and often photographed the references himself was the American painter Thomas Eakins. Throughout various studies for his paintings, he photographed his friends (and, quite frequently, his students) in the nude. These figures, seen relaxing, playing, and wrestling, hint at an underlying appreciation for the male form, such that many historians have come to the conclusion that Eakins himself may have been gay. “Having sexual relations with men, as Eakins may well have, led trumphant champions in the gay world to claim Eakins as a brother. Traditionalists hold that Eakins either wasn’t gay or never succumbed to temptation - or that it doesn’t matter” (McFeely, p47). Perhaps Eakins most famous painting, The Swimming Hole (1884-85), has no fewer than four reference photos shot by Eakins of his students swimming in the nude at Dove Lake. While the painting would certainly grow to be more well recognized than the photos, one cannot deny that Eakins interest in photography is partially what led to him so successfully rendering the human form.
Another popular form of the male nude near the turn of the century would have been portraits of famous body-builders and strongmen. Much like artist’s studies, body-building imagery could exist in a highly reverent and sexualized place, but be free from criticism due to a certain classical, artistic aesthetic. Often, the male genitalia was not exposed, therefore drawing more attention to the impressive musculature. Of course, just 50 years later, photographer Bob Mizer would be arrested in the United
States for distribution of incredibly similar images to those of Eugen Sandow shot by Napoleon Sarony, though the 19th century athlete photography had an air of plausible deniability when it came to its subjects’ and intended audiences’ sexuality. These images were the “perfect example of manhood” (Borhan, p29) that helped to make “cracks in the Victorian wall of prudery” (Chapman, p64). Borhan suggests, however, that the countless photos of Sandow have their own secret, underlying homoeroticism: “Sandow[...] had no hesitation in living with the handsome pianist and composer Martinus Sieveking, his ‘great and inseparable friend,’ in the countries he visited for his ‘performances’” (p29). Nearing the turn of the century, it would appear that the majority of homoeroticism still existed in hushed tones, usually eluding even the perceptiveness of hindsight as to whether or not the reading is intentional.
The great evolution of homoerotic photography would come with the completely, undeniably gay work of photographers such as Wilhelm von Gloeden, Wilhelm von Plüschow, Vincenzo Galdi, and Fred Holland Day. While all of these photographers could market their photos as artwork, often depicting Grecian or biblical themes, there was an undeniably sensual, if not downright sexual aspect to their work.
The two German photographers Wilhelm von Gloeden and Wilhelm von Plüschow (cousins, though working largely separate from each other) would photograph young men in various levels of nudity, drawing heavily on themes of mythology. To them, the boys they photographed were as gods, muses, and statues come to life. Gloedon had more commercial success, partially because he was more interested in it, and partially because Plüschow’s work was more overtly erotic. Fred Holland Day, operating mostly out of America, photographed in a similar way to Gloeden, but elevated his subjects to the fine-art standards of early 20th century pictorialists. His series of photographs in which a young man reenacts the death of St. Sebastian, perhaps his best known work, is typical of its era with its “fuzzy”, soft-focus imagery. Day’s models may have been frequently nude, but his aesthetic and classical composition obscured any sexual element. As Borhan puts it, “He never made the genitals of his models the focal point of his compositions; his eroticism is more mental and artistic than carnal” (p48). Unlike Gloeden and Day, Vincenzo Galdi (himself a protege of and model for Wilhelm von Plüschow) rarely used theming and costumes to hide his sexual intentions. His work bordered on the more pornographic side of nude photography, his models quite often having everything on display, so to speak. Writing critically of Galdi’s photos, Borhan states that “if you take away the appeal of carnal desire, you take away almost everything” (p46). However, to view a full immersion into the realm of pornography, one needs to look elsewhere.
In a chapter of Borhan’s Man to Man entitled Between Eroticism and Pornography: The Audacity of Homosexual Amateur Photographers, he outlines the work of photographers in early gay pornography. Though a largely illegal business in the early 20th century, pornography could finally be made due to three major advancements: roll film, more affordable cameras, and easier at-home developing. The surviving gay pornography of this time period is mostly attributed to anonymous photographers and features anonymous models. Gone were the rules of private sexualities and classical forms, these were men engaging in sexual encounters right in front of the camera. Due to the anonymity, this period of gay photography is difficult to write about. Though much of the knowledge has faded into obscurity, there is no denying that this period marks an important change: photography was in the hands of everyday folk, and morality was slowly changing.
History, ultimately, is shaped by those who write it. Many of the photographers mentioned in this essay had large portions of their negatives destroyed at one point or another, either by themselves for fear of being discovered or by disapproving government authorities. Luckily, the history is still there if one looks for it. Rather than negating the established, accepted history, however, the early history of male homoerotic photography serves as an excellent companion piece to the “canonical” history of photography. One can see how the invention and evolution affected a notable minority group and how they, in turn, affected it. If nothing else, one must accept that every history has hidden aspects, fascinating in their own right.
Works Cited:
Borhan, Pierre. Man to Man: A History of Gay Photography. Edited by Gilles Mora. Translated by Patricia
Clancy, The Vendome Press, 2007.
Chapman, David L. Sandow the Magnificent. University of Illinois Press, 1994.
Deitcher, David. Dear Friends, American Photographs of Men Together, 1840-1911. Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 2001.
McFeely, William S. Portrait: The Life of Thomas Eakins. W. W. Norton and Company, 2007.