Check Out These Guns: Nathaniel Fink in conversation with Joey OrrJoey: One of the first things that come to mind with this series is its visual, cultural and historical indebtedness to the pseudo-sciences of typology and criminology. These theories rest on photographic/indexical capture in order to show that particular physical types determine personality or character traits. The way you shoot all of your subjects from the same perspective (with the exception of Bayne in the trees), though they differentiate themselves in pose, creates the illusion of an objective observer. You are obviously playing on this kind of juridical imaging and mixing it with notions of desire, which I love. I wonder for myself, and for you as an image-maker: how do we make meaning in queer culture? Must we rely on working against traditions of oppression?
Nathaniel: It's interesting you mentioned the criminological/typological aspect of the Check Out These Guns series. When I started the series, I was initially approaching it from the contemporary perspective of looking at male body image issues and challenging the mainstream ideal of what the male body should look like, vis-a-vis 1970s Feminist artists. Once I began to delve further into the project I became aware of the extensive history of typologies being used for psychological and criminological studies and that began to serve as an interesting historical foundation on which the project could be built. The work of William Herbert Sheldon and his theories on male body types was intriguing to me for the similarities it shares with Check Out These Guns, particularly for his meticulous and somewhat obsessive documentation of young male nudes. It is interesting for me to imagine his motivation for doing such a study, since such an undertaking, even in the name of science, would seem to require something more than just a passing interest in the male body. Was Sheldon's desire actually that separate from his scientific inquiry? I find the homoerotic nature of his studies to be very intriguing. Another thing that comes to mind are the beefcake magazines of the 1950s and how they thinly veiled desire under the guise of an interest in physical fitness. It seems that historically, infatuation with the male body has been channeled away from direct desire and admiration towards science and/or physical fitness. Perhaps because we have been working against systems of oppression, desire can now be openly expressed in the media and art.Joey: So, let’s take your premise that desire can now be openly expressed in the media and art (though we might in another conversation dispute how we qualify the ability to now “openly express”...tricky stuff), and I discover your work. I might ask questions like these:
In the Spring 2009 issue of The JOSH, we find a series of images of topless men affecting poses that communicate their masculinity and sexual prowess. We assume that the maker of these images, Boston-based artist Nathaniel Fink, has more than just a passing interest in the male body. While the series exhibits different body “types,” why are all of the subjects young men (twenties to early thirties)? If Fink is interested in the male form, why not photograph them nude? Why is the artist using the same perspective on all of his subjects (with the exception of Bayne, the photos of whom seem to be their own kind of series)? Does he mean to evoke the juridical traditions of image-making? Do we believe the subjects’ performances are sincere? Does it matter? And finally, how are these images received? Are they sexy? Are they funny? Do they evoke homoerotic (or other) arousal of some kind?
Nathaniel: Since you ask a multitude of questions, and each one is equally compelling, I thought I would break them down and try to answer each one individually.Joey: While the series exhibits different body “types,” why are all of the subjects young men (twenties to early thirties)?
Nathaniel: Even though I consider Check Out These Guns to be a finished body of work in of itself, it also represents one of my first projects to deal specifically with the male form and thus it is somewhat of a jumping off point for future bodies of work. For COTG I chose to focus on the different body types within this specific age demographic because it marks an interesting transition point between adolescence and adulthood, when men are considered to be in their peak state of physical masculinity and virility (never mind the fact that many men do not reach the height of their economic and emotional power/security until middle age when their bodies are deteriorating. Shirtless corporate executives... that would be an interesting photo project but entirely different). At this age, most men still retain some of their boyish qualities and the insecurity in their masculinity which tends to dissipate with age. COTG is about trying to capture some of that fragile masculinity.
Joey: If Fink is interested in the male form, why not photograph them nude?
Nathaniel: In COTG I was focusing more on the more playful aspects of masculine gender performance rather than the sexual. My intention was to create a scenario in which the viewer feels compelled to compare him or herself to the subject of the photograph. In this way it is a critique of the many hypermasculine archetypes to which boys are taught to aspire at a young age. I think of figures such as the athlete or brawny comic book superhero as some examples of these archetypes that create unreasonable expectations of what a male body should look like and/or how it should perform. COTG is about seeing and exploring mostly average male bodies and the ways in which they may be similar to or different from our own. While portraying them nude would no doubt heighten this element of comparison, it would also take away the playful innocence of the series and thus decrease our ability to openly identify with them. Perhaps nude men flexing will be the subject of a future series.Joey: Why is the artist using the same perspective on all of his subjects (with the exception of Bayne, the photos of whom seem to be their own kind of series)?
Nathaniel: You correctly note the difference between COTG and the series featuring Bayne, which is the beginning of an offshoot project in which I'd like to isolate specific body types based on Sheldon's categorizations and photograph an undetermined number of men from each group. Originally I had wanted the models of COTG to be posed outdoors against a mostly cloudless blue sky, but due to the limitations of weather and model availability I decided to use the more controlled environment of the studio. The Bayne series is both an experiment with using an outdoor setting and a possible jumping off point into this future series. The idea to pose the models outside harkens back to the beefcake magazines and male physique photography of the 1950s, which served as the initial aesthetic inspiration for COTG. Many of these photographs are posed outdoors, usually in some sort of rocky, desert-like environment as if to suggest that this is the natural environment of the male. Shooting in the studio seemed like an adequate compromise, though, since many of the earlier physique photographs were shot in studios with neutral environments. Since the subject is ultimately the male body, I did not want the environment or variations in perspective to become distracting elements in the photographs.Joey: Do we believe the subjects’ performances are sincere? Does it matter?
Nathaniel: Each model was briefed on the background of the project and given a relatively similar set of prompts (i.e., flex your muscles above your head, flex down, one arm up one arm down, pretend you are Superman, go freeform, etc., etc.) and responded to each in his own unique way. I take them at their word that it was an authentic performance, however I do not read the detectable smirk on some of the models faces to be lack of sincerity. I think the nature of their performance ultimately negates the question of sincerity since they are portraying such a basic and primal action. Displays of one's prowess can be seen across the animal kingdom, even if it is simply for play. I think for that reason it makes us less likely to question their sincerity since it doesn't really matter if they are taking their performance seriously or not. What is interesting to me is the ways in which we can read these performances. Is the model who appears to be very confident just overcompensating for his insecurity? Is the model who appears more reticent acting on an instinct of self-protection? Are masculine displays by nature an act of overcompensation and/or bluffing your opponent? Some of the more serious-looking models in the series are actually individuals I know in life to be more carefree and extroverted, while some of the more gregarious-looking models are actually more serious and quiet individuals. Perhaps being asked to act out this basic action reveals something about their personality that wouldn't otherwise be apparent. Joey: And finally, how are these images received? Are they sexy? Are they funny? Do they evoke homoerotic (or other) arousal of some kind?
Nathaniel: What is interesting to me about the series is that everybody who views them sees something different based on their background. Because flexing men is such a universally recognized subject, it makes it easy for many people to relate in some way or another. For example, while the show was up I saw two boys of about seven or eight years old strike their own poses after looking at the images. I noticed that women tended to get much closer to the photographs while men tended to observe from a distance. Many gay men who look at the series have tried to detect which models might also be gay and engage in a kind of hopeful guessing game (an experience very much paralleled in real life). Some of the models have much lower pants than others, and I think that adds to the erotic tension of the images as well. I take a fairly egalitarian view of the series. I think that perhaps there is a little bit of something for everybody in it.This conversation was conducted as a series of e-mail exchanges in September - October 2009.
Nathaniel Fink - Based primarily in photography, Nathaniel Fink’s work encompasses aspects of performance, video and mass-produced multiples, drawing inspiration from topics such as literature, mythology, current events, and queer and feminist theory. Fink is currently working on merging his divergent interests together into one project. ”You Are What You Eat” (2006) and ”Extreme Diet Project‚ (2008)” are both performance pieces, documented photographically, which explore the effects of diet on a daily basis, while his ”Check Out These Guns!” (2008) project examines the male body through a series of playful and humorous portraits of shirtless men flexing their muscles. In 2008, he earned a B.F.A in Photography at Maryland Institute College of Art. Fink currently lives and works in Boston, MA.
www.nathanielfink.comJoey Orr – Joey Orr is a freelance writer, editor, curator and former instructor in Visual and Critical Studies at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago. His curatorial work has focused almost exclusively on installation and public intervention, from alternative, grassroots venues to museum, commercial and municipal exhibition spaces. He holds a Master of Arts in Visual and Critical Studies from the School of the Art Institute of Chicago and is currently a doctoral student in Emory University’s Graduate Institute of Liberal Arts, where his studies include memory, queer space and theories of affect.
www.joeyorr.com
Come join John Q members Wesley Chenault, Andy Ditzler, and Joey Orr, at Outwrite on Wednesday, February 23 at 7:30 p.m, to celebrate the release of the JOSH -- the Journal of Sexual Homos. 
