From Male Pathological to Male Positive: The

Engendering of a Post-Heteronormative Gaze in

Francis Bacons and David Hocknes De!ictions of
Men in the "#$%s
Dennis S. Gouws, Springfield College, Massachusetts, USA
Abstract: Francis Bacon and David Hockney codified male desire in ways that contested conventional
protocols of the heteronormative, or naturalized heterosexual, aze! "hrouh their frank depictions of
the male body, Bacon#s and Hockney#s imaes ofmen in the $%&'s deliberately explore the intricate
process of male(male identification which is often circumscribed by the social pressures inherent in
heemonic masculinity, a sociohistorically continent ender(identity peckin order amon men, and a
tendency of ynocentric ender critics to treat the male body as patholoical or ridiculous! )any
works from this period by both of these artists affirm embodied masculinities, by complicatin the
sub*ect(ob*ect relationship, and resist bein read as merely depictin the male body as essentially
patholoical, by celebratin the embodied male! "he four exemplary works discussed in this paper+
Bacon#s "hree Fiures in a ,oom -$%&./, his "wo 0tudies for a 1ortrait of 2eore Dyer -$%&3/,
Hockney#s Adhesiveness -$%&'/, and his 4n an 5ld Book -$%&&/+ represent an enenderin of a post
heteronormative aze that offers a male(positive, rather than a male(patholoical, depiction of men!
Keywords: Masculinities, Male-positive, David Hockney, Francis Bacon
MALE ARTISTS DEPICTIONS of men fruitfully draw attention to how men see
themselves: this deliberate a!e on men produces works that invite reflection on the
homosocial relationship between the observer and the observed"
#
$n addi tion, althouh the
male spectator miht choose to identify with the man he sees% empathetically imainin his
point-of-view and e&perience, for e&ample% he will probably also consider, however briefly,
this observed man's physical attractiveness, iven the cent rality of aesthetics to much
artistic appreciation"
(
)uch consideration conse*uently invites some e&ploration of
homosocial desire" Francis Bacon and David Hockney codified male desire in ways that
contested conventional protocols of the heteronormative, or naturali!ed # +he 5xford 6nlish
Dictionary ,hereafter referred to as the 56D- defines the aze as, ./ way of reardin people or thins which is
considered to embody certain aspects of the relationship between the observer and the observed% esp" as e&pressed in
art, literature, film, etc", by how an author chooses ,consciously or not- to direct his or her ,and hence the audience's-
attention"0 1ve Kosofsky )edwick defines homosocial as .social bonds between persons of the same se&0 and
homosocial desire as .the potential unbrokenness of a continuum between homosocial and homose&ual2a
continuum whose visibility, for men, in our society, is radically disrupted ,Between #-(-" )ee, for e&ample, 3aura
Mulvey's discussion of the male spectator's identification with men on screen: ./s the spectator identifies with
the main male protaonist, he pro4ects his look on to that of his like, his screen surroate, so that the power of the
male protaonist as he controls events coincides with the active power of the erotic look, both ivin a satisfyin
sense of omnipotence0 ,.5isual0-" $ arue that the discourse of visual arts forerounds an opportunity for
aesthetic appreciation of the male body heterose&ual, a!e" +hrouh their frank depictions of the
male body, Bacon's and Hockney's imaes of men in the #678s deliberately e&plore the
intricate process of male-male identific ation which is often circumscribed by the social
pressures inherent in heemonic masculinity, a sociohistorically continent ender-identity
peckin order amon men, and, as will be seen below, a tendency of ynocentric ender
critics to treat the male body as patholoical or ri diculous"
9
Many works from this period by
both of these artists affirm embodied masculin ities, by complicatin the sub4ect-ob4ect
relationship, and resist bein read as merely depictin the male body as essentially
patholoical, by celebratin the embodied male" +he four e&em plary works discussed in this
paper% Bacon's "hree Fiures in a ,oom ,#679-, his "wo 0tudies for a 1ortrait of 2eore
Dyer ,#67:-, Hockney's Adhesiveness ,#678-, and his 4n an 5ld Book ,#677-% represent an
enenderin of a post-heteronormative a!e that offers a male-positive, rather than a male-
patholoical, depiction of men"
+o be male-positive involves adoptin an acute attentiveness to how masculinities are
inscribed in a iven culture: doin so involves affirmin different embodied masculinities by
assertin that boys and men are worth discussin as sinular sub4ect matter% resistin
depictions of boys and men as essentially or typically patholoical% and challenin
ridiculous and misandric treatment of boys and men2particularly when irony and rhetorical
stratey support misandry, .;the< hatred of males% hatred of men as a se&0 ,=1D-" )ubversive
and celebratory in their intent, the above-mentioned works by Bacon and Hockney address
the popular, topical inscription of masculinities in their heteronormative conte&ts by acknow
ledin the influence of nascent homoerotic popular maa!ines on male-male desire% by
unapoloetically presentin men as sinular sub4ect matter for erotic scrutiny% by subvertin
the discrete manaement of desire central to the heteronormative a!e% and by offerin op
portunities for affirmin the embodied, se&ually potent male body"
&n &c'te &ttentiveness to the ('lt'ral )nscri!tion of Men Bacon and
Hockney codified male desire in ways that contested conventional ,naturali!ed- protocols of
the heteronormative a!e" )imilar to how >op /rt e&posed the mass-media-e& pressed desire
inherent in post-war ?estern consumerism, their works from the #678s e& plored the
vocabulary orani!ed by body-buildin and men's health popular maa!ines that enabled an
iconoraphy of male-male desire and a celebration of the male body" )imon =field has
coently arued that, @in the early #678s Male Alassics and other maa!ines formalised in
their desin what many men, includin Bacon, had been doin for some time2makin sense
and pleasure from within a comple& interte&ual environment"""";Bacon's and Hockney's works
produced in this period< demonstrate a similar informality and rane of formal characteristics'
,.Aomparative )traners0 76-" +hese characteristics include the .collae form of e&plicitly
appropriated imaes and te&ts0 evident the fle&ed, posed male body ,with its latent productive
enery- and its deliberate offerin of itself for the spectator's pleasure in the conte&t of
aesthetically informed artistic display ,76-" >eter ?ebb has noted Hockney's use of similar
visual vocabulary evident in the photoraphs in 1hysical 1ictorial maa!ines when e&plorin
how he miht effectively e&press his own homoerotic interest in 9 B" ?" Aonnell defines heemonic
masculinity as .the confiuration of enderpractice which embodies the currently accepted answer to the problem
of the leitimacy of patriarchy, which uarantees ,or is taken to uarantee- the dominant position of men and the
subordination of women0 ,CC-" +he 56D defines ynocentrism as the .;dominant< or e&clusive focus on women%
ynocentric theory or practice% the advocacy of this"0his work ,1ortrait DD-D7% 7E-7D-" +hese works
by Bacon and Hockney, therefore, reinscribe this popular homoeroticism-in-hiher-art
trope in the conte&t of fine art, thereby invitin the viewer to acknowlede, and perhaps to
e&plore, homosocial desire by a!in on the male body"
Men as *ing'lar *'+,ect Matter
+hrouh their frank depiction of the male body, Bacon's and Hockney's pictures of men in
the #678s deliberately e&plore the intricate process of male-male identification" /lthouh
both artists worked with women models, the study of the male body was central to their
work" $n addition, these male studies demanded more from the spectator than the reconition
of topical formal borrowin from popular culture because they record the e&pression of a
male desire evident in the artists' bioraphies and in their approach to representin the male
body" /s Forman Bryson succinctly observes, .what is at stake is the male a!e upon
another male0 ,.Gericault0 (98-" Moreover, the ways in which the men are presented in these
works2displayed for physical inspection2renders the kind of easy identification of the
observin male viewer with the male bein observed ,the kind of homosocial bondin dis
cussed by Mulvey- less straihtforward" +he male spectator is compelled to enae with
homoerotic possibility, involvin him in homosocial desire"
E
)nvestigating the Effects of Hegemonic Masc'linit and
Gnocentrism on -as of *eeing the Male Bod
+he a!e on the male body in ?estern culture is currently sub4ect to heteronormative and
ynocentric proscriptions" Because it naturali!es male-female desire, the heteronormative
a!e auments heemonic masculinity by providin an incentive-based model for
reulatin male desire" Aontemporary heemonic masculinity subordinates men who
desire men, to men who desire women% moreover, the heteronormative a!e, that miht
allow for men to identify with those men at the pinnacle of heemonic masculinity, insists
on what Bryson calls @a continuous in4unction to maintain"""the same ;heterose&ual < codes
of masculinity' ,(9#-" Men may, therefore, only see other men as heroes, not as embodyin
homoeroticism" $n addition, in their strateic attempts at underminin patriarchy and
phallic power, yno centric ender critics have often treated the male body as patholoical
or ridiculous" /rthur and Marilouse Kroker's "he Hysterical )ale, which trumpets
.feminism under the failin sin of the unitary male sub4ect,0 and 1rnest van /lphen's
patholoical readin of masculin ities2includin a ridiculin discussion of the penis as a
@shriveled shrimp'2in Francis Bacon and the 7oss of0elf are typical e&amples of this kind
of strateic misandry"
D
3ookin at the male body, therefore, currently often involves either
an imperative to identify with it rather than to desire it on the one hand, or an insistence on
e&posin its supposed patholoy and limitations on the other"
From Male Pathological to Male Positive
Bacon's and Hockney's works deliberately celebrate male desire for the male body, and
their frankness invites the spectator to identify with their attempts at understandin the
parameters of humanity and its pleasures" +he patholoy in Bacon's works concern
modernity rather than man: Bobert Huhes credits Bacon for bein .able to incarnate such
;modern< an&ieties in the human body, notin that .Bacon's is perhaps the e&treme voice
of the mis 8re des h9tels, the sense of bein trapped within the city by unassuaeable and
once almost unnameable appetites0 ,0hock (:7-" $n addition to e&pressin modern malaise,
Bacon's paintins do unflinchinly depict a spectrum of embodied male-male desire
successfully, drawin the spectator into e&perience homosocial desire" /lthouh somewhat
,and unapolo etically- louche, these works challene the heteronormative a!e by
presentin masculine desire as viorous, vital, and about men wantin men" Boberta )mith
sums up this achieve ment well: .Bacon convincinly painted men havin se& and
sometimes makin love"""" He emphatically turned the male a!e toward males0 ,.$f0-"
Hockney depicts male pleasure differently but no less subversively" Huhes famously
dismissed Hockney as, .the Aole >orter of fiurative paintin,0 ,rather than .its Mo!art0 for
whom he .should so often and so e&aeratedly have been taken0-, suestin that Hockney's
work was more style than substance ,E(#-((-" $n his dismissal Huhes, however, does not
seriously attend to Hockney's treatment of the male nude" $n his portraits of men Hockney
celebrates embodied masculine beauty and invites the spectator to en4oy it too" +his invitation
situates the se&ual male body as leitimately available for the spectator to en4oy" 1dmund
?hite pays tribute to Hockney's achievement, iven that the artist, @had to fit his work into a
culture that accepts female nudes as classical but abhors the male naked body, if it is adult and
contemporary0% moreover, ?hite claims that Hockney neotiated his male-positive de piction
of men in a conte&t where, .the naked adult male is in and of itself transressive0
,.3ineaments D#0-" Hockney's depiction of the male nude subverts the heteronormative a!e
and dinifies the male body as beautiful and available to its contemporary viewer and not 4ust
to anti*uity" Both artists' works enable different embodied masculinities by complicatin the
sub4ect-ob4ect relationship and resist the display of the male body as essentially patholo ical
by celebratin embodied masculinities" +hey celebrate somatic masculinity as potently male
positive rather than dismissin it as patholoical"
The *'+,ect-o+,ect .elationshi!
Bacon's "hree Fiures in a ,oom -$%&:- and Hockney's Adhesiveness -$%&'/ confound the
conventional heterose&ual sub4ect-ob4ect relationship" +hey deny the heteronormative e&
pectations of the spectator by both refusin to support his or her individuation and by stra
teically resortin to an embodied indeterminacy" Mikhail Bakhtin arues that, .+he body is
not somethin self-sufficient: it needs the other, needs his reconition and form-ivin
activity' ,./uthor0 D#-" $n other words, accordin to Bakhtin, one's identity partly depends
on another's confirmation of one's e&pectations of one's selfhood and particularly how one
manaes one's desire" Gilles Deleu!e observes that @$n place of formal correspondences,
what Bacon's paintin ;"""< imposes ;is< a !one of ob4ective indiscernibility or indeterminab
ility between two forms, one of which was no loner, and the other, not yet' ,Francis (8-"
+his imposition disrupts the discrete somatic cateories of desire inherent in the
heteronormative a!e ,permittin a man to admire but not to desire the male body-"
Hockney's paintin abstracts the body to the e&tent that the bodies become unreal, but
se&ually distinct2a parody of the ideal, unattainable beauty that is often the ob4ect of the
male a!e" ,Geores Bataille, for e&ample, has arued in 7#8rotisme that the heteronormative
a!e values .unreal forms: the less clearly they are sub4ect to ;"""< the physioloical truth of
the human body, the better0 ;#D:<- +his abstraction vividly forerounds the homose&ual act
bein depicted without al lowin the spectator decisively to distance him or herself from it"
$n "hree Fiures in a ,oom what 1rnst van /lphen terms the .a!e of the other,0 the fiures
.represented and embodied in the imae,0 do not cooperate with the spectator at all: the
scatoloical ,or, perhaps, ecto plasmic- fluids in the left panel seem to symboli!e the
contemptuous refusal of the fiure to offer himself up to the spectator for appraisal
,.Francis0 #77 -" $n addition, althouh the fiures in the central and riht panels seem to be
fle&in their bodies ,like the men in the male physi*ue maa!ines discussed above-, the do
not offer themselves to the spectator for scrutiny2they both deliberately ,not modestly- look
to one side" +he fiures' indiscernibility ,their flesh overflows their form, e&emplifyin what
Hohn Bussell has called .male voluptu ousness0- confounds the spectator's 4udment of their
value as ob4ects of the a!e ,#9:-" $n addition to parodyin the heteronormative .enerally
accepted vision of a desirable ;woman< ob4ect0 ,Bataille #D:-, Hockney's Adhesiveness uses
the fiural indiscernibility to render male-male se&ual pleasure visible in a visually
compellin, embodied way2one that, Delue!e miht arue @discovers the materiality of our
bodies' ,Deleu!e EC-" +he coded letters inscribed on the fiures ,D"H" for Hockney on the
left, ?" ?" for ?alt ?hitman on the riht- invite the spectator's to flesh out for him or
herself the bodies on display" $n doin so, he or she assumes some complicity in the se&ual
event occurrin in the paintin% moreover, the spec tator is reassured by the aesthetic conte&t
2the fiures are located in front of a paintin2that what is bein seen is dinified as art"
+hese two paintins e&ploit Bakhtinian sub4ect-ob4ect dependency and Deleu!ean somatic
indeterminability to challene the stability of the hetero normative a!e and enable an
artistic acceptance of different, embodied masculinities that are post-heteronormative"
The Male Bod and Heteronormative Do/a
+he male nude reveals the limitations of heteronormative doxa"
7
$n this conte&t, ?hite's
claim that, .the naked adult male is in and of itself transressive0 is evident in its challenin
the doxa% the socially prescribed stereotypes, tradition, and public opinion, informin how, in
this case, one sees the male body" Moreover, the penis often bears the brunt of attempts to
leitimi!e both patriarchal and ynocentric control of the male body and appropriate
masculinities" +his submission of the male body to violence and ridicule represents what /nn
Hefferson describes as the process whereby, .the sub4ect falls prey to a representation that
constructs him in terms of the stereotype,0 resultin in both an alienation from and an
.assimilation into the do&a' ,/nn Hefferson .Body0 #C8-" Aircumcision, for e&ample, repres
ents a violent assimilation to patriarchal doxa% ridiculin or makin patholoical phallic power
e&emplifies strateic stereotypical assimilation of the male body to ynocentric doxa" Both of
these assimilations, however, depend on an alienation of the man from his whole,embodied
sense of himself" 1rnst van /lphen reads Bacon's works as workin aainst this process of
assimilation: van /lphen observes that, .$nstead of allowin the do&a to ob4ectify the body,
Barthes proposes to keep the body in a movement that asserts its resistance aainst, even
throuh the use of, the doxa0 ,#7D-" Bacon's and Hockney's works from this period can be
read as resistin heteronormative doxa not only because of their appropriations of
imaesIconventions from those .early #678s Male Alassics and other maa!ines,0 discussed
by =field, but also throuh their embodied celebration of men" Bacon's works from this
period resist male-patholoical do&a by disseminatin traces of embodied male vitality into
the a!e relationship% Hockney's works use do&a-informed traditional conventions of visual
display ,those classical depictions of somatic pleasure represented by 5enus, for e&ample,
and in the case of his ;avafy 6tchins, =rientalism and the odalis*ue- to resist the hetero
normative a!e"
C
Bacon's "wo 0tudies for a 1ortrait of 2eore Dyer resists male-patholo
ical do&a in that it reiterates the above-mentioned taut-muscle posin and a refusal to
confirm the spectator's sense of self and otherness by acknowledin him% however, the
work also disseminates traces of embodied male vitality into the a!e relationship" /lthouh
Bacon had used this spermatic trope in his #699 ;rucifixion, he uses symbolic masculine
fluidity as a mark of dymanic male desire in his paintins durin the #678s"
:
+hese marks
subvert the heteronormative a!e by e&pressin illusive masculine se&ual pleasure in ways
that avoid the proscription of the above-mentioned doxa" >ost-heteronormative male desire is
e&pressed thouh the traces of embodied dissemination sinifyin se&ual pleasure that has
already taken place2or is occurrin while the spectator is a!in at the male body" +he
spectator is also the celebratory collaborator when a!in at Hockney's 4n an 5ld Book" +he
sensuous line etchin, without round, presents a naked youn man who frankly addresses
the spec tator" His pose references a Kouros ,or an =dalis*ue, perhaps-% however, his well-
developed body resists stereotypical ob4ectification" $n this etchin, the other's challenin
a!e, his nudity2he wears no ender-stable clothin ,but sportin a necklace that connotes
his aes thetic awareness or his relationship with its iver-2his display ofpubic hair, his
fleshy penis unmarked by circumcision2that ultimate patriarchal do&a2resist patholoy
and refuse ri dicule" He frankly, and with dinity, presents his body for pleasure, yet his eyes
enae the spectator, appraisin his fitness to participate in what could be a male-positive
se&ual e&per ience"
(oncl'sion: Male-!ositive Trace
Bacon's and Hockney's works can be read as avoidin do&a, and enenderin a post-hetero
normative a!e, because they inscribe embodied masculinities dynamically and productively"
?infried FJth arues that, .1very semiotic element incorporates in itself the trace of all other
elements ,and structures- in the form of inscription,0 and the shift in the a!e from male
patholoical to male positive enabled by these works insist that the viewer celebrate their
inscription of diverse embodied masculinities and their pleasures ,(77-" +he success of this
insistence can be seen in two latter works: Hockney's A Bier 0plash ,#67C- and Bacon's
<et of =ater ,#6::- are amon their best received works and ood e&amples of seminal
male-positive subversions of discrete heteronormative viewin e&pectations% both
paintins foreround seminal trace and its masculine associations" Male orasm e&presses
a enerous, ivin indicator of pleasure and life, and its trace convincinly disseminates
men's unselfish contribution to reproductive pleasure% it is the essential source of male
positive masculinities" Moreover, e&pressions of male-positive trace symboli!e
masculinities ,and the boys and men who embody them- as sinular, dynamic, and
productive sub4ect matter% alon these lines van /lphen con4ectures, .$t is possible"""that
the visibility of male orasm is not motivated by fantasies around women's se&uality or
around male control or domination of men""""+he visibility of e4aculation turns it into a
sin of action and production0 ,#:E-" Men carry within their bodies the potential for a
uni*ue celebratory pleasure that, as these worsk of Bacon's and Hockney's works of the
#678s suest, offers much more beauty and productive potential than is usually evident in
heteronormative proscription, patholoy, and ynocentric ridicule of them"