American Rudder, 1999
Oil on canvas
79" x 59"

Wes Hempel's
American Rudder
By Douglas Blair Turnbaugh

Twentieth century art-fashion critics nearly dictated out of existence and made a pejorative term of “academic art,” and, indeed, they derided any figurative art as bourgeois and sentimental. So picture-lovers became inured to its absence in the greater art market, even in “illustration.” They turned, by default, to photography for “realism,” and the joy of visual cognition. Furthermore, there is the virus of ever present homophobia of the art market (which, for example, still tacitly avoids the fact that Andy Warhol was gay). In this sterile environment of denial, it is a visceral shock to be confronted by a contemporary painting, in this case American Rudder, by Wes Hempel (b. 1953), which has the stunning impact of its great 19th century academic precedents. Academic art featured a high level of technical ability, but beyond mere craft, “the nude and its necessary ornament, drapery, formed the cornerstones of the academic ideal. The purity, nobility and beauty of the human body–predominantly male–represented the central and single most important element in any history painting” (from French Artists in Rome: Ingres to Degas, 1803-1873, Dahesh Museum, 2003). Hempel is quoted as saying, “I’ve always been in love with the classical traditional paintings that are in the canon of art history.” Wonderfully, he has the technical skills and aesthetic imagination to communicate this love to us. And as with the best academic artists, to accommodate the greater public, he knows how to sublimate the homoerotic content, leaving that sometimes onerous responsibility to the viewer (as: it takes one to know one).

This picture brings to mind Polites, Son of Priam. Observing the Movements of the Greeks Towards Troy, by Hippolyte Flandrin (1809–1864), and the issue of artists’ subversions to avoid denunciation as queers. Polites, a ravishing youth, has dared to remain outside the city to watch for the approach of the enemy. Unlike our American Boy, Polites is alert and independent. He is naked, seated so that his genitals are not exposed but a bush of black pubic hair between his shapely thighs is the focal point of the canvas. (For the drapery requirement, what looks like a white sheet is thrown over his shoulder, obscuring almost none of his lovely body.) Polites has a beautiful mane down to the nape of his neck. Critics of the picture, probably upset by the pubic hair but too prurient to mention it, instead remarked that the boy’s coiffure was too Middle Ages (think Prince Valiant), not ancient Greek at all.

Hempel frames his youth in a Roman arch, as the Madonna and Child were so often presented in religions icons, signifying he is god-like and adorable (we knew that anyway but the arch and background are beautiful!). Also, nudging us to remember this is in the style of high Renaissance art, Hempel gives a demonstration of one point perspective, with lines on the floor and lines in the landscape directly leading our eyes to the idol’s crotch, the focal point of the painting. (Like Flandrin’s figure, the genitals are not exposed, in this case covered by chinos, but “do I have to draw you a picture?”) We get the point, or not. I think my mother could have taken it, admired it as great art for its technique and beauty, and the nice young man with the gun, but she probably would have remarked “why does he have to have his shirt off?” Flandrin would not get away with it — Polites was en plain air and bare ass naked. Mothers know what boys get up to when their pants come off. So does Wes Hempel, but he makes the viewer take the initiative.

The painting was donated to LLGAF by Andrew Sie, and is a great addition to the collection.