In preparation for the LGBT tour of Tate Britain (Sunday 30th June) I've been looking at some works by John Singer Sargent (1856-1925). Sargent is probably best known for his portraits of society ladies and dashingly distinguished men - he was the most lauded and sought-after portraitist of his day - and, as you can see from this self-portrait, a bit of a hipster who knew how to wear a hat.
Self Portrait, John Singer Sargent |
Sargent’s sexuality has been a matter of conjecture for many
years. He stayed a bachelor his whole life and had no children, whilst
remaining very secretive about his private affairs. He certainly hung out with
lots of openly gay men, as many artists of the time did, painting them as well
as socializing with them. Another painter, Jacques-Emile Blanche, declared
after Sargent’s death that his sex life had been ‘notorious’ and called Sargent
a ‘frenzied bugger’, though Blanche himself was one of the most notorious and
untrustworthy gossips in Paris.
Jacques-Emile Blanche (1886), Sargent |
Certainly, Sargent’s lesser-known but equally celebrated paintings and drawings of
male nudes seem to reveal a way of looking at men that eroticizes them, in
contrast to his paintings of women, which tend to represent an exotic
ideal of beauty. In his 1994 biography of Sargent, Trevor J. Fairbrother wrote:
'Sargent's art is the best "evidence" of his personality, and the homoeroticism of some portraits and many informal studies has been prudishly avoided by most scholars. If, indeed, Sargent balanced a public career with a repressed sexuality, his conflicted social-sexual identity may be a key to the successful tensions within his art... I propose that the visual emotional volatility of his work may have been shaped by his attraction to male beauty.'
It's also worth noting that Sargent thought of these male nudes as private work - he never exhibited them or showed them to anybody outside of a close circle during his lifetime - so it's possible to think of this as 'closeted' art.
'Sargent's art is the best "evidence" of his personality, and the homoeroticism of some portraits and many informal studies has been prudishly avoided by most scholars. If, indeed, Sargent balanced a public career with a repressed sexuality, his conflicted social-sexual identity may be a key to the successful tensions within his art... I propose that the visual emotional volatility of his work may have been shaped by his attraction to male beauty.'
It's also worth noting that Sargent thought of these male nudes as private work - he never exhibited them or showed them to anybody outside of a close circle during his lifetime - so it's possible to think of this as 'closeted' art.
Nude Study of Thomas McKeller (1917), Sargent |
Study from a Nude Model (after 1900) |
Male Nudes Wrestling (after 1900) |
Portrait of Madame X (1884), Sargent |
Tate Britain’s Portrait of W.G. Robertson (1894) is, for me, a representation and celebration of the
sissy, with Sargent and Robertson collaborating to produce an image that is
both unashamedly effeminate and codified as queer. Robertson is posed in the
same full-length-with-a-twist-at-the-waist stance that many of Sargent’s female
subjects used, because he and they knew how this flattered the figure. The
dark, floor-length coat lengthens and slims the body, but also, I think, makes
Robertson appear more youthful. He was 28 when this picture was painted but
looks as if he’s playing dress-up in adult’s clothing.
Portrait of W.G. Robertson (1894), John Singer Sargent |
The jade-handled cane is
not only camp and dandified, it’s a definite signal to those in the know that
Robertson is one of them/us (isn’t that handle and the way Robertson’s fingers
encircle it a bit, well…suggestive?) And where to start with the poodle lying
at Robertson’s feet – Mouton it was called – a delicate pink bow tying the hair
away from its eyes? Camp doesn’t begin to cover it…
As a bit of a sissy I’m very drawn
to this portrait as a reflection of my own effeminacy. Of course, nowadays I
see nothing wrong with any of that, but I haven’t always felt that way about
myself. I had identified the sitter of this portrait as gay before I knew
anything about him or the signals contained within it, and it also
confirms for me the existence of an undoubtedly gay gaze in Sargent. It is
Robertson’s hand on the hip that particularly resonates. How many times have we
seen that gesture used to imply, represent, and accuse in relation to gay male sexuality? How many times in gay men's lives do we catch ourselves, stop ourselves, from executing it, and how often do we gleefully perform it? It’s not only the placing and positioning of the hand, it’s the hand itself –
long, delicate and pale – a distinctly ‘sensitive’ hand.
When I was thinking about all this I
immediately thought of another very different but equally stunning portrait in Tate Britain; The First Lord De la Warr (c1550), at one time attributed to Hans
Holbein but now labelled as by an ‘unknown painter of the British School.’ The picture below is of the painting before its recent restoration.
The First Lord De la Warr (c1550) |
The identity of
the painting’s subject is also not totally certain but, as the title suggests,
it's thought to be of William West, a Tudor nobleman who was known as ‘The Thug.’
West had been banned from court and from inheriting titles after he tried to
poison his uncle. He was pardoned later on and welcomed back into the fray.
Like Robertson, de le Warr has his hand on his hip, but it couldn’t be more
different – clenched into a fist and placed forcefully, not languidly, against
his waist.
Unlike Robertson his body faces straight ahead though like Robertson he is dressed
in black to emphasise his wealth and his fine (distinctly manly) figure and, unlike
many other Tudor portraits of young men, he’s all about strength not beauty. He’s
less of a Courtier than an Action Man, as his ruddy cheeks and knuckles testify.
The other hand is the same but different
too (hands really are a give away, aren't they? A student who couldn't remember my name once described me to a colleague as 'the one with the glad hands.' Note also the pinky ring on Jacques-Emile Blanche's little finger). The luxuriously beautiful gloves are scrunched so tightly against his sword
hilt that de la Warr clearly doesn’t care about spoiling them. Not for him
Robertson’s loosely teasing, tickling hold.
And if that cane handle is
suggestive then de la Warr’s codpiece is positively, shockingly inviting - Look at me! it shouts. Not only does it
protrude massively towards the viewer, the black velvet is slashed at the tip,
silk teased out at the crown to recreate the shape of de la Warr’s bell-end (sorry, there’s no other word for it).
Seen together in this way both of these portraits
become about the sexual politics of gesture. The hands and stance in both
portraits are doing the same thing: producing an attitude of, and towards, the
body (and by extension the personality) of the subjects, one distinctly ‘masculine’,
the other stereotypically ‘feminine.’ In both cases it’s possible to look at
the men in the picture with the gay male gaze – perhaps more knowingly in the case of
Sargent’s picture of Robertson. In the portrayal of de le Warr, the painter
has produced a kind of Tudor Physique Pictorial – an invitation for men to look
at another man (because it’s not for women he’s showing off his cock), and to
feel admiration, intimidation and, yes, desire.
Self-Portrait (1906), John Singer Sargent |