HOMOEROTIC PRUDERY and a Dog called Harry

Thomas Eakins, American, 1844-1916 – “The Swimming Hole” 1885 – oil on canvas

The style of this work is realism but not necessarily naturalism. There is strong homoeroticism to the painting.

Six nude males frolic and engage in diving and swimming from and around a protruding rocky, derelict man-made structure that juts into the natural lake or river from a grassy bank. The rocky prominence acts as a diving point with six male nudes and a swimming Irish Setter dog, in a variety of postures; reclining, kneeling/seated, standing, diving, standing bent over and swimming. The image is uncluttered with clothing or other bathing paraphernalia. The sunlit scene has a bushy and tree-filled backdrop with an open glade stretching into the distance. The highlights and the sunlit glade suggest a pleasantly hot day in summer.

The rocky outcrop and figures dominate the centre and lower half of the painting. To bring your attention to the main six figures the artist has highlighted and contrasted sunlit naked flesh skin tones against the deep dark green tones of the bushes and trees of the background that also contrasts with the sunlit open glade and blue sky.

The figures look posed and unnatural but they do follow a progression of a narrative of the almost repetitive activity. There is a rise and fall of the three figures and diving figure on top of the rocky structure starting with the reclining figure stretched out to the kneeling/seated figure whose hand is raised towards the standing figure standing with hands on hips. The top of the shoulders and head give the apex of this dynamic and descending to the diving figure that slightly curves picking up the reflected curve of the diver turning the eye down and around picking up the dog, (an Irish red and white setter) that is swimming back towards the curving wadding figure directing the eye up the body to complete a circular dynamic with the dark patch/hole in the rocks as a pivotal point. This cycle reflects the general activities of the group, waiting in line, making a dive, swimming around to joining the queue to repeat the activity. There is a larger stable triangular dynamic from the wading figure up to the kneeling figure to the apex of the standing figure again and down to the diving figure and this time extending to the swimming figure entering the bottom right which leads the eye to pick up with the swimming dog back to main central part again. Perspective and depth are suggested from the bottom left corner patch of grass across to the lighter colours of the receding viewpoint of the sunlit, open meadow and up to the far trees in the distance and the sky at the top right corner. The swimming figure entering the bottom right is also a lead-in entering the painting and directing the eye towards the main focus.

Even though the figures seem to be non-engaging with a feeling of being emotionally disconnected there is still a frisson, a palpable intensity of homoeroticism. The reclining figure seems to be looking at the buttocks of the man to his right. The kneeling figure has a raised arm directly towards the highlighted buttocks of the standing figure who stands with his hands on his hips. There is also a highlight on the top part of the leg and buttock of the diving figure. I would suggest that this is not direct proof of homosexuality, no genitalia are depicted but it must be a strong indication of such activity.

Despite the usual Victorian prudish attitudes, especially in America, in its day, nude groups of sunbathing or swimming males would have been acceptable, away from the female gaze. Today, Victorian prudish attitudes are still prevalent, perhaps even stronger in some quarters.

The figures feel emotionally detached with no personal interplay or connection, perhaps as a result and safeguard against a negative homophobic backlash. However, in its day, nude men swimming in public would be an acceptable pursuit and pastime in more cosmopolitan states of America.

Although a seemingly simple scene this progressively modern painting, (for its time), is underpinned by classical compositional devices and classical academic life-drawing. Eakins displays a mastery of the male nude rendering an in-depth understanding and knowledge born of years of rigorous academic training and love for the subject. In this painting, the beautifully rendered and range of expressive poses of the figures look like life-class poses that are unnaturally arranged and set into the naturalism of the landscape.

I do not doubt that this post will invite a range of emotions and feelings with blustering rants of prudish loathing with a smattering opposition of approving support for the painting and artist.

To finish, I want to show a statement from the artist in support of such paintings and explorations of themes. In 1886, Eakins was forced to resign from his post at the academy. He removed a loincloth from a male model in a mixed class where female students were in attendance. In a letter, Eakins explained his reasons for resigning and addressed the issue of nudity in his artwork:

“My figures at least are not a bunch of clothes with a head and hands sticking out but more nearly resemble the strong living bodies that most pictures show. And in the latter end of a life so spent in study, you at least can imagine that painting is with me a very serious study. That I have but little patience with the false modesty which is the greatest enemy to all figure painting. I see no impropriety in looking at the most beautiful of Nature’s works, the naked figure. If there is impropriety, then just where does such impropriety begin? Is it wrong to look at a picture of a naked figure or at a statue? English ladies of the last generation thought so and avoided the statue galleries, but do so no longer. Or is it a question of sex? Should men make only the statues of men to be looked at by men, while the statues of women should be made by women to be looked at by women only? Should the he-painters draw the horses and bulls, and the she-painters like Rosa Bonheur the mares and cows? Must the poor old male body in the dissecting room be mutilated before Miss Prudery can dabble in his guts? … Such indignities anger me. Can not anyone see into what contemptible inconsistencies such follies all lead? And how dangerous they are? My conscience is clear, and my suffering is past.” For dog lovers, the Irish Red and White Setter is called, HARRY. (I am sure people will correct me if I have improperly identified the breed).