
Philip Swarbrick - Subway Encounter

Antonio Canova (1757 - 1822) Thesius Slaying a Centaur
One of my more recent posts addressed homoeroticism, however, I was unable to explain what made a piece homoerotic. After looking at images deemed as homoerotic and much thought, I have a theory that what makes a work of art homoerotic is in hyper masculinity and what ideas of masculinity represent and repress. Oddly enough, my theory is based on the properties of physics.
Sociologist and gender studies guru, Janet Saltzman, described seven traits of masculinity. These traits are represented in the males in many images that are considered homoerotic.
Physical — virile, athletic, strong, brave. Unconcerned about appearance and aging;
Functional — breadwinner, provider for family as much as mate
Sexual — sexually aggressive, experienced. Single status acceptable; (do not mind to walk around naked, especially around other guys)
Emotional — unemotional, stoic, for example, the proverb "boys don't cry";
Intellectual — logical, intellectual, rational, objective, practical,
Interpersonal — leader, dominating; disciplinarian; independent, free, individualistic; demanding;
Other Personal Characteristics — success-oriented, ambitious, aggressive, proud, egotistical; moral, trustworthy; decisive, competitive, uninhibited, adventurous.
Several homoerotic images I have seen and some I have posted include some, if not all, of these traits in the representation of the male form. The males are seen in peak physical condition, often times naked or half naked, working in jobs such as firefighters, in the military, or as warriors, and are dominating. In some images, emotion is shown, but the males are not overly emotional. Notice the two images above. Swarbricks 'Subway' depicts two males in good physical condition, shirtless talking to each other, lacking emotion, in a subway. Canova's 'Thesius Slaying a Centaur’, includes a dominating naked male in peak physical condition stoically slaying a centaur. Many gender scholars consider this complete form of masculinity as hegemonic masculinity. John Wayne is hegemonic masculine, while Jack Black represents another form of masculinity. Most homoerotic art shows John Wayne type men. So if the art that is considered homoerotic so overtly masculine, the obvious question is what makes it have an undertone of homosexuality and therefore be considered as homoerotic. The answer lies in what masculinity represses and strangely enough, in the properties of physics.
Masculinity, according to Swarbrick, and Western society in general, represses femininity. Femininity being an opposite of this complete, hegemonic, form of masculinity. Masculinity is not emotional, submissive, open, or caring. In the homoerotic art, these traits are often not seen because the piece is so hyper masculine. For any system to be functional, there must be a balance of certain parts. In physics within a closed system, there must be a balance between the particles for the system to be functional. In this closed system, particles will have spontaneous changes in density, temperature, etc. for the system to remain operable. If these changes do not occur in order to create balance and harmony, the system will destroy itself. This applies not only in physics, but also in any system, even in society. In homoerotic art, which I am considering a closed system, a singular male or a greater number, is depicted. All of the men, or either the singular male, is hyper masculine. There is no balance of masculine and feminine traits, only an overload of masculinity. For the system to remain operable, a balance, which most often happens spontaneously, will occur. The balance will occur by the males releasing the feminine traits that were formerly repressed. This all leading to...voila...the potential for a homosexual act, or great affection between males to occur, which is western society is often considered gay. If this does not occur within the closed system, the males who are hyper masculine would probably kill each other in a battle to be the alpha male, and the system will be destroyed.
Subconsciously, maybe we look at image filled with hyper masculinity and know that the bough will have to break and femininity must be released somewhere, immediately deeming it as homoerotic without any ‘gay’ act occurring. This is my own twisted brand of logic, as a science nerd and society geek, but I think it works in explaining why art that is so masculine is often considered homoerotic.
Physics explains all.