Physique Out

Out (February 2009) ambitiously has several name photographers recreate or pay homage to the work of the beefcake photographers that used to appear in seminal publication Physique Pictorial. Unfortunately, I was underwhelmed with the execution. I didn't think the cover—by faves Pierre et Gilles—was very sexy or noteworthy, and while the men in the talented Walter Pfeiffer's attempt are hot, the image left me cold:

"Untitled" (2008), Walter Pfeiffer

Works by Doug Inglish and Benjamin Alexander Huseby are too silly to post. Jack Pierson contributes an unmemorable regular-guy shot. I don't mean to be overly critical, but as I flipped through the feature, I had no clue the shots were taken by such well-known photographers.

James Bidgood turns in a dreamy Maxfield Parrish-esque image:

"Cove At Dawn" (2008), James Bidgood

The images I really liked were by Matthias Vriens, whose cowboy shots of Mark Ricketson (first) and Doug Porter (second) would have made better cover choices:

"Untitled" (2008), Matthias Vriens

Comments

[Chris]

I read this issue of Out last night. The whole issue is thin and dull, kind of sad.

The James Bidgood image with the sunset was my favorite too.

[Desperate Artist]

Yes, I agree the Pierre et Gilles is disappointing, especially since their work is known for being so fantastical, and this cover shot misses the mark. However, what's important to keep in mind is that this homage to beefcake by such talented modern-day photographers is, indeed, on point. The photographers of the beefcake "physique pictorial" era weren't particularly good photographers. They were mediocre at best, and it was their subjects that made this imagery iconic.

[J. Clarence]

I think the cover was more focused on the background than it was the guy. I liked the color choices, it reminded me of a comic book cover for some reason. There is just too much going on the cover to make it sexy, but I think if that wasn't your objective it was creative.

I think keeping with Out tradition the Doug Porter picture might have been better; however, it wouldn't really be that different, just a recycled cover from so many other magazines covers like it.

With exception to the last of the pictures you posted here none were great at all. And in the age of the Internet, where you can get much better for free, Out is going to have to step it up a bit.

[kenneth]

It's HARD to go wrong with Doug Porter.

[Matthew Rettenmund]

Desperate: I somewhat disagree; I don't think the photographers of the beefcake era considered themselves fine artists, and some of them may have been technically challenged, but the best of them were extremely gifted with the camera, their self-taught skills shining through in the tones they achieved. Their sometimes quirky, even campy, content is hard to overlook (gladiators, for example) and makes it easy to forget everything else going on in each photo. And yes, the men were often brimming with sexuality, which helped. But they knew what they were doing and at their best were as good as any of their descendants (Bruce Weber, etc.). That's why I expected the Out layout to be amazing; when paying homage, you would pay homage to the best of the best, not the worst or the mediocre of the best.

But when you talk about the models making the picture, that does remind me of the thought I have every time I see a new "hot, naked men!" coffee-table book. I'm sometimes almost drawn to buy it then just realize that unless I can't live without a certain random guy's image in my house, there is no other point.

[Homotography]

I agree with you. The idea was very ambitious but the result is very disappointing and doesn't reflect the caliber of those photographers. I am not sure if the mag or they are to blame (I mean, did you see those guys hugging the tree or that guy next to the pool?). The Vriens speedo cowboys is the only decent thing about it.

[casey]

as an artist, i agree with the comments above. when paying homage to a certain artist, or genre of art, the most important thing is to capture the 'feel' of said artist or piece. i haven't seen the magazine yet, but in looking at the photos you posted here, they went for the small stuff-the distracting details-without first capturing the unique time and place those original physique photos were taken. you must always get the big stuff correct before you work on the details. these photos capture none of the 'elegance' or the respect for the models that early physique photographers went for. even when their props were ropes, cowboy hats or gold lamé posing straps, the models were elevated to mythical greek gods, not reality show cast offs.

[Matthew Rettenmund]

Casey: What may be tripping them up is that when those guys were shooting back in the day, they were defying the law and society and were indulging themselves with a taboo subject matter that had to be extremely sexually satisfying, too. That is a lot of subtext to try to fake now, in an era where we've seen and done it all. The photogs worshiped the models back in those days; now, I would guess the photogs see models as cattle. Not all photogs, and not all models, but there just is not the same level of adulation. If anything, it's the opposite.

[Toby]

Amazed that Chris found the issue dull. It was, indeed, thin, but the story on the late departed Austrian right wing leader, Jorg Haider, reminded me that gay magazines still turn up stories that eludes mainstream media. The Physique Pictorial was of mixed success, but how anyone can consider the cover by Pierre et Gilles dull is beyond me. Have you seen GQ or Details lately? This was inventive and out-of-the-box.