On Painting Men

“Why this?”

In a thesis, application, or biography I would (and have) use phrases like “drawing from his experience as a queer trans man” or “exploration of gender conventions, expectation, and presentation”. Though these are not untrue, they are in a language meant to suggest an intellectual relevance and seriousness. But this is a blog post, and I’m making an effort to share my honest thoughts. So I’ll speak plainly: It’s what I like to look at and it’s fun to draw.

It’s a fun way to respond to centuries of nude women painted for consumption in a world that prioritizes the straight male gaze. Not to say that these aren’t beautiful. But after so many works characterizing women as symbols of purity or sex, or paintings depicting goddesses and nymphs fully nude (they’re ethereal- and therefore doesn’t count as pornographic) you see a pattern.

Wouldn’t it be refreshing to see in a gallery an alternate depiction of David and Goliath? A young, built, and nude David stepping on the thigh of his adversary, Goliath sprawled below him, tunic riding up suggestively, and a clasp undone to expose a single breast. Art.

It’s a silly thought, but no more ridiculous than the overt sexualization of Titian’s ‘The Rape of Europa’ or ‘The Nightmare’ by Henry Fuseli (the latter of which I find quite scary, funny, and enjoyable). It’s these silly thoughts that make me WANT to draw. And in following this urge, I’ve learned that you never know who the imagery will connect with.

One of my favorite moments from doing conventions was when a group of college age bros passed by my table. One of them stopped dead in his tracks in front of my table, and stared at my prints of suggestively painted male bodies. Then he loudly announced: “This art’s TIGHT” before continuing on with his friends. I’d like to make art I want to make and connect with the people that think it’s “tight”.

So I guess I should amend my reason: It’s what I want to see and make, and it’s meaningful when the work finds others who want to see it too.