Throughout my research on representations of masculinity in male body-based

performance art, a dominant pattern has emerged over the last fifty years. In the works of
Chris Burden, Andre Stitt, and Gilbert and George, normative masculine traits have been
performed to an excess, which seems to destabilise hegemonic masculine ideologies. I
have come to call this pattern Muscular Masculinity.

Muscular Masculinity is a metaphoric parody of hypermasculine identity. Hypermasculinity

in many respects is closely associated with hegemonic masculinity, and as such can be
articulated as the hyperbolic performance of strength, power, control, emotional resistance,
and stoicism by men. This is best demonstrated through the action hero for example
Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sylvester Stallone, and Jason Statham. When performed it has a
relational impact on other genders and marginalised identities, as such men who assert
hegemonic masculine characteristics, traits and behaviours, do so in order to enhance
their status.

However, whilst similar, hypermasculinity is not the same as hegemonic

masculinity. It is the heightened performance of a few masculine norms, rather than being
the actual norm itself.

In addition to enforcing some normative masculine ideologies about the male body,
hypermasculinity also compensates for those which are lacking. The poor, jobless male
youth, for example, might not be financially successful, but he might gain feelings of power
by excessively displaying his masculinity through aggressive sexism and violence (Karp
2010, pp.65). Hypermasculinity in this respect also becomes a mask for male
inadequacies, weaknesses and other qualities that undermine normative representations
of gender.

The reiteration of hypermasculinity is learnt through mainstream cultural mediations, such

as film, news, sports and mainstream heterosexual pornography, to name but a few. The
latter, for example, teachers men that in heterosexual relationships female and male
bodies should be seen as oppositional binaries. The female sex worker is expected to
perform a sense of pleasure in her activity, and these are coded in particular ways. Laxmouthed expression, the caressing of her own body, the groan of a deep penetrative
pleasure, and most importantly the pleasure of losing control. Whilst there is a sense of
passive uncontrollability associated with her, the male sex worker is almost always
perceived as active and machine like. Not only through his hard physicality, but also in his
actions where he functions with emotional resistance and technical efficiency; his only goal
is to bring her to orgasm (Garlick 2009, pp.608).

This is because to ejaculate in

pornography is not about pleasure for the male it is about controlling the representation of
her pleasure through skill and endurance (Williams 1989, pp.101). In this respect the men
in these films are not demonstrating sex at all rather they are demonstrating power over
their bodies, and their female co-workers (Thomas 1996, pp.21). This demonstration of
power masks the cultural fear that male bodies, as with female bodies, might be
uncontrollable.

Hypermasculine representations can also be found in art, but in many respects these
images do not just reinforce hegemonic ideals. Instead they also seem to destabilise the
whole idea of hypermasculinity in relation to normative gender roles.

It is as if whilst

concealing the inadequacies of maleness, they also aim to reveal them.

Touko Laaksonen, is best known for his pseudonym Tom of Finland, and his illustrations of
gay culture and fetish art.

In his later works he depicted males, with super-enlarged

physical traits, both muscular and penile, physically dominating other men.

Usually this

form of violence was representative of authority. On the one hand he illustrated police
officers, or the armed forces, and on the other criminals or social deviants such as leather
clad biker gangs. However, the cathexis of these hypermasculine images are not focussed
on heterosexual desire as seen in mainstream pornography, but rather on a homosexual
one. In the Jailhouse Series (1987) one illustration depicts a police officer receiving oral
sex through the bars of a cell from an inmate, whilst at the same time receiving anal sex
from another officer.

In this particular illustration the masculinised binaries of authority,

those men who uphold the law and those who break it, becomes blurred.

Authority

becomes socially deviant through homosexual desire, whilst criminality becomes literally
desirable. As such, normative references of hypermasculine identity, power strength and
authority for example, are turned against themselves to reveal a potential excess of
meaning outside of heterosexuality.

This post-structuralist hypermasculine turn is also illustrated in male body-based practice.

Chris Burdens stoicism turns into shock, Andre Stitts aggression becomes an infantile
tantrum, whilst Gilbert and Georges emotional control becomes weird and awkward rather
than an accepted norm. However, the performances of these artists, and the illustrations
of Tom of Finland, should not be confused as being simply hypermasculine. There is a
difference
pornography.

in how these artists use hypermasculinity compared to mainstream

Whereas the latter uses hypermasculinity to enhance elements

maleness to mask inadequacies and to achieve status,

of

the former presents an ironic

parody of hypermasculinity.

When parody is used in this way it does not refer to its usual definition, to mock. The term
para in parody is a Greek prefix meaning counter and against as well as to be near or
beside (Hutcheon 1986-1987, pp.185).

In this context a parody is paradoxical as it

ironically pulls close that which it comments upon in order to foreground an ideological,
social and historical critical discourse. Tom of Finland, and the body-based performance
artists mentioned above, draw upon representations of hypermasculinity through the
performances of those traits. In doing so they simultaneously critique them by revealing
the instability of masculine ideals.

As such, the critique of masculinity in these works

occurs as a result of their ability to defer its normative meaning. In this context to parody
masculinity means to continue to use authoritative understandings of masculine identity to
the point where a transgression of gender boundaries occurs.

This causes a critical

dialogue about gender representation, which in turn can aim to evoke change.

As such, these artists are not defined as being hypermasculine because whilst enforcing
normative expectations of masculinity through hyperbolic performances of maleness, they
also reveal the fragility of the gender order. Instead this thesis articulates these
performances as being indicative of Muscular Masculinity. The word muscular is a
metaphorical reference to normative masculine traits such as fortitude, strength (both
physical and emotional), control, stoicism, and hardness.

Therefore, those artists

mentioned above perform Muscular Masculinity because they present a parodic meeting of
muscle with muscularity.

This demonstrates the potential for excess in masculine

representations in body-based practice.

Bibliography
Garlick, S. (2009). "Taking Control of Sex? Hegemonic Masculinity, Technology, and Internet
Pornography." Men and Masculinities 12(5): 597-614.
Hutcheon, L. (1986-1987). "The Politics of Postmodenism: Parody and History." Cultural Critique
5(Winter): 179-207.
Karp, D. R. (2010). "Unlocking Men, Unmasking Masculinities: Doing Men's Work in Prison." The
Journal of Men's Studies 18(1): 63-83.
Thomas, C. (1996). Male Matters: Masculinity, Anxiety, and the Male Body on the Line, University
of Illinois Press.
Williams, L. (1989). Hardcore: Power, Pleasure and the Frenzy of the Visible. Berkeley and Los
Angeles, University of California Press.