It seems to be a growing trend. Swann Galleries held their first LGBTQ+ Art, Material Culture & History auction back in 2019. It was apparently successful enough to have become an annual August event with a variety of works including fine art, photographs, literature, autographs, and ephemera related to the LGBTQ+ experience 

Now RAGO has joined the action with their Loud & Proud auction, curated by New York gallerist Hal Bromm. It's the first in a new series "dedicated to the boldness, bravery, and influence of queer artists across the past century." Spanning the 1930s to the present day, this auction featured noteworthy lots by artists including Keith Haring, Nan Goldin, Andy Warhol, and David Wojnarowicz, as well as Robert Gober, Glenn Ligon, Jack Pierson, and Gerda Wegener.

We're delighted to see the growing recognition of the importance of LGBTQ+ culture. Not a moment too soon.

There were some great photographs at Bonhams' recent auction: THE MALE FORM. Nudes by Maplethorpe, John Dugdale, PaJaMa and George Platt Lynes. Drawings by Tom of Finland sold in the range of €20,000 to €45,000. 

But it was this drawing by Yves Saint Laurent, "Erotique Maroc," that caught my attention. It offers a different view of the famed fashion designer who died in 2008. Apparently enough time has passed that it's now safe to feature his kinky side at auction. 

"Yves remembers that it was here that he used to invite young Arab boys to pose nude. A series of erotic drawings show these men harnessed in SM leather or accessories from Moroccan folklore, with good-sized cocks; he sketched them during or just after the sensual revelry that entangled their bodies."

Marianne Vic "Le prince de Babylone", Ed. Seuil, 2022.

I guess if you're Yves Saint Laurent you can call it "sensual revelry!"

Drawing-Watercolor
Felt pen, colored felt pen and colored pencil on paper
Sold for €7,680 inc. premium.

We rarely have much information on the models in our photos, but thanks to the brilliant Reed Massengill, we know quite a lot about handsome John Converse (AKA Dak).

Converse had a fairly successful commercial modeling career. His modeling portfolio was shot by two of New York City's great talents of the 1970s and 80s,  After Dark magazine contributors Roy Blakey and Kenn Duncan.  

Prior to that he posed nude for physique photographers Walter Kundzicz (Champion) and George Haimsohn (Plato). It was Kundzicz who gave him the name Dak, which he also used modeling for Target. Photos from one of his Target sessions were published in the July 1976 issue of Mandate.

A bit later, Converse posed for John Coletti (Fox Studio) using his real name. Ads for Fox photo sets in publications like The Advocate touted him as "The Fox: John Converse," helping to establish that studio. 

Massengill writes: 

I love him best in his slightly-longer-hair period. Champion shot him first (and youngest) with very short 1960s hair. He looked better after a few years, when he reached what I consider his personal peak. I keep a pretty thick file on John Converse/Dak, as it's likely he may still be out there somewhere.

Additional photos of Converse appear in three of Massengill's books: Roy Blakey's '70s Male Nudes (Goliath, 2002), Champion (Goliath, 2003) and in the Plato chapter of Uncovered: Rare Vintage Male Nudes (Rizzoli/Universe, 2009).

We’ll never know who took these pictures. Or identify the models. Not where, not when. So they have to stand on their own, and they do – evoking emotions and sensations beyond memory.

These anonymous photos have the power to connect us across the decades. That they exist at all is a testament to the existence of men who risked jail time for taking, mailing, or just possessing them. 

That they managed to avoid the trash heap is a minor miracle. If they convey a message it’s “We were here.” 

Many of these prints were made by taking pictures of other prints because your local photography shop or drugstore was more likely to call the cops than process these sorts of negatives. So “copy prints” were made, sometimes skillfully, often crudely. They passed first from hand to hand, and later from generation to generation. 

Because we recognize the desire inherent in these images they can still attract, arouse, amuse, and move us.

Not bad for a bunch of unimportant pictures.

He was a psychologist who worked for the city of Los Angeles with incarcerated patients. An orchid enthusiast who converted the pool house of his Beverly Hills home (formerly owned by Jim Nabors!) to a greenhouse where he’d create hybrids.

And at night, Dr. Hull was an avid amateur photographer, or should we say, pornographer.

His Polaroids from the 1960s document in personal, one-of-a-kind images, dozens of men posing at his home. Were they friends? Sex partners? Were they paid? Did they come for a few beers and, you know, things happen?

In varying states of undress, they’re all about the same age, trim and fit. They smoke. They drink. They strip. They flip through magazines: Follies and Muscleboy. 

There are plenty of dicks and more than a few erections but there’s no sex. When a guy lies on the bed, the sheets may be rumpled but he’s alone.

Compared to what we commonly see today it’s all pretty darn chaste. Beyond any prurient interest, these photos serve as a diary of one man’s private encounters and offer a peek into a shared gay past. These guys aren’t living in fear or isolation even though the outside world could be a dangerous place. 

Sodomy was a felony in every state until 1962, punished by a lengthy term of imprisonment and/or hard labor. Mailing images with frontal nudity was illegal until 1967-68. People who were outed routinely lost their jobs and families. Photographers were harassed and arrested.

Pictures like these could get a guy into a lot of trouble. They remained hidden for 60 years, coming to light only after Dr. Hull’s death. The fact they’ve survived is a minor miracle.

The fact they exist is a miracle of technology. Polaroids were the hot new thing in the 1960s. For the first time since the creation of photography you didn’t need to develop negatives or risk sending them out to a lab. 

No need to wait more than a few minutes as the photo gradually, magically appeared. The immediacy was fun and exciting, creating an instant bond and an enduring memorial. Something entirely new was created when gays got their hands on a Polaroid camera. Stonewall and Gay Liberation were just around the corner.

See the Polaroid Collection.

I happened to come across this "Obscenity and Nudity" article in Tiger Magazine No. 3 from 1966. Yes, some people DO read the articles! 

It points to the Puritanical attitude of "militant civic, religious, and fraternal organizations" towards nudity in the U.S. compared with acceptance in other ("backward"!) countries like Spain. With nudes banned from ecommerce sites, Instagram etc. we seem to be moving backwards in time (even while porn is ubiquitous). 

Here's the banned painting in question.

 

Here's a photo I just posted to Instagram.



Within a couple minutes it was deleted with the following message:

Our guidelines on nudity
We don't allow people to share nudity.
We define nudity as things like:
• Showing buttocks or the anus
• Showing someone's genitals
• Showing female nipples, except to talk about breast feeding, the moments after giving birth, health or an act of protest

So nearly 60 years after the Tiger article, even Goya's painting of the Naked Maja would be banned by Instagram. Please note that showing your dick or ass is apparently not an act of protest. Fucking pathetic.

You may have noticed a number of the photos listed on Homobilia have the term "copy print" in the description. Copy prints are simply prints made from other photos, rather than from negatives.

The main reason they're common for subject matter like male nudes is peoples' fear of sending them through the USPS. Up until the late 1960s the consequences of mailing nude photos could be very severe if you were caught.

Sometimes it's easy to tell a copy print. You might notice the edges of the original photo don't align with the edges of the copy. Or maybe you’ll see things like photo corners (above) or a bit of a table top. The clarity and focus are not as sharp as the original (below) and there are often miscellaneous artifacts, spots, etc. on the copy print.

 

Another sign of a copy print is the paper wasn't manufactured when the photo was taken. You’ll even find eBay sellers making copy prints on their inkjet printers, and the unscrupulous ones try to pass them off as “vintage.”

But sometimes it's not so easy to identify a copy print and it comes down to a feeling that it "looks like a copy print." So when I have my suspicions I mention it in the listing description to be transparent. 

Does it really matter? Certainly you should expect to pay less for a copy print than an original photo. But if you truly love a photo it may not make much difference if it's a vintage copy print. In a way it adds a layer of meaning.