Lines between art, erotic art, and pornography

I've been giving this quite a bit of thought recently, the lines

between art, erotic art, and porn. Photo.net seems to be very much

anti-erotic art and anti-porn. How the lines are drawn is a very

personal decision, I've had a couple of shots labled "disgusting" and

seen male nudes removed as "pornographic" while an equivelant shot of

a woman is praised. I'm curious about other people's opinions and

ideas of where these lines are and MORE IMPORTANTLY, any ideas you

might have on how you drew them.

 

In all honesty, I'm in the process of intentionally crossing and

blurring the lines in my personal, private work. What I am doing now

will not be posted to photo.net. I'm getting comments and feedback

from some friends who are artists, not photographers...its interesting

that these lines seem less rigid in the art world, and one particular

shot that would have been masacred on photo.net has gotten some very

interesting critiques from non-photograper artists.

America was settled by "pilgrims",not a boat load of artists.We love to see heads explode on the TV/movie screens,but write letters when a woman breast feeds a baby in a shopping mall!

 

Last year at Stewart Intl Airport,here in upstate NY.An art exhibit had an image of a mother breast feeding.All of these insane, puritanical women wrote letters about how offended they were!Their big worry:what if the children see this? The same children that sit for hours killing people on video screens, might be offended.Meanwhile the painting didnt even show the woman's actual breast!The baby's head was covering this! If this were in the mid-western US, this might be understandable.Stewart airport is 60 miles from mid town Manhattan!

IMHO - it's a big grey area. There's absolutely no black and white to this issue. There's one shot I've recently seen on p.net that many would regard as pornographic - and it could well be. It's of a woman who has a couple of fingers inside, shall we say. But to me, it's just a good photo. It just happens to have a sexual context to it. I personally would say it's an erotic photo, others would (and have) said that it's porn.

 

I think that are viewpoints on what's porn, and what's art may well be formed in our early years. By our parents, our religion etc. Thankfully, I'm not (and never have been) religious - so I don't have that monkey on my back. Perhaps the way I look at an image is different from the way someone who went to Sunday school as a child, and still attends church (mosque,temple whathaveyou) as an adult looks at the same image. And, neither my, nor their, interpreation is more correct - it just is.

 

My favorite artists, whether they're photogs, writers, painters, sculptors, musicians whatever are the ones that cross lines. They are the ones that challenge our everyday conceptions. That, to me, is what an artist is. Marilyn Manson is as much an artist as the Beatles were. Dosteyevski is more of an artist than Tom Clancy. Ok, I'm getting off track.

 

I don't know why male nudes are removed, while female nudes stay. If I were a voyeur, I'd only look at the female nudes, but I tend to find that the few male nudes often have more artistic value than the females. A shot of an erect penis should have the same artistic value as a shot of erect nipples. But we live in an increasingly conservative world. Men basically run the world. And we prefer to look at an erect nipple than an erect penis.

 

Perhaps, p.net is just a microcosm of the world.

 

If all of that makes no sense, blame the makers of Tsingtao.

Any society dominated by puritanical "family values," will view sex solely as a means for procreation. The medieval liaison of church and state gave the church a responsibility to keep the peasants in line and encourage the growth of populations to swell the ranks of farm workers and the military. Although church and state are supposedly separated in this country, there's no shyness about the close links forged between politicians and organized religion.

 

So, when any depiction of sexuality or sensuality suggests that sex might also be fun or satisfying any urge other than to create more children, our society casts a grim eye and too often proclaims it to be pornographic.

 

Further, because photography tends to be more literal in its imagery, as compared to other art forms that are viewed as interpretive, there's the suspicion that the motive of the artist might be an appeal to our prurient interests rather than our artisitic sensibilities.

Can it be left the coffee table when your neighbor; relatives; mother are visting?

alton, it seems photo.net is used by both photographer/artists and photographers who dont consider themselves artists as well as computer geeks who marvel at the lastest digital whatever, so it seems a cross section of people are participating at this site. As far as the lines between art/pornography/erotic art/blah/blah/blahhh, these lines, to a true artist/creative, should be someone elses problem.

<i>Can it be left the coffee table when your neighbor; relatives; mother are visting?</i>

<p>

And the answer to that question supposedly determines what, exactly?

<em>Can it be left on the coffee table...</em>

<p>

I actually thought that was a fairly practical test, because it was very relative to the person

and local social mores (which in the end define what is porn or not porn). It is interesting

that the context can affect your judgement on such questions - what one may find

acceptable displayed in an art museum in context of an exhibit may seem pornographic

sitting in your living room. Also, it is one of expectations - perhaps a neighbor may feel

the ability to make an informed choice on whether to view certain images in an art gallery

and may feel otherwise if unexpectedly running into similar material while obtaining a cup

of sugar (well, at least the first time).

<p>

Questions of whether something is pornography or not is debatable in too many cases -

which is why the question often ends up in court. When it is presented in the context of art

(in a controversial exhibit) I get the impression that the question of whether an image is

pornographic or not becomes further confused?

<p>

Going back to the original post. Alton, why are you surprised seemingly that you would

see some comments like "Disgusting"? This is like "Why did someone rate an image 1/1?"

It's personal - as you mention in the previous clause.

<p>

That said, in the greater scheme of things photo.net seems to me to tend towards

conservatism - but a leavening of context within the overall portofilo of a member seems

to affect judgement? (One image of fingers in vagina may be challenging while the image

in a portfolio showing some context might emerge as commentary?)

<p>

Man, do I need a cup of coffee to put on that coffee table. My mom's eyesight is not what

it used to be - but she seems to see well enough to begin lecturing me on my

photographic choices:-) (Which is my way of saying to the caffeine deprived that the coffee

table test is not only whether your neighbors or relatives will be offended, but whether you

care if they are).

when god gave us eyes, we all became voyuers, and yes womens bodies are more beautiful than mens, i think thats the natural way of things, moral values change with the latest invaders, what is the beef.

<i>...and yes womens bodies are more beautiful than mens</i>

<p>

You (and certainly I) may be more attracted to womens' bodies than mens', but the absurdness of that as a objective statement of fact is pretty apparent.

<i>Which is my way of saying to the caffeine deprived that the coffee table test is not only whether your neighbors or relatives will be offended, but whether you care if they are.</i>

<p>

It's a meaningless, idiotic test. What the philistines next door think couldn't possibly be of less importance in a discussion about what is art.

Mark thinks it absurd to say that womens' bodies are more beautiful than mens'.

 

But Mark, we know men like to look at womens' bodies. And what do women look at? Cosmo and Mamoiselle aren't filled with pictures of men.

 

And for every David there are entire walls at the National Gallery filled with paintings of women.

 

Seems like the voters have spoken.

In real world, true lines do not exist. Only in theory, in geometry and in the algebra where you can define lines with a set of numbers and relationships. If you draw a line, it will immediately get a finite thickness and blurry edges.

 

For me, the line you ask about is really really thick and blurry. :)

 

I don't think PN is anti-erotic. There are plenty of photos posted that are...well, VERY erotic. They are not removed by anobody else than the poster. True though, that there are plenty of folks feeling obliged to protest against these - but that does not make the whole site anti-erotic.

 

Artists are quite ignorant regarding many "lines" drawn by the society, not only in this field. If *they* give you interesting critiques and/or appreciate a work of you, it does not mean that it will be accepted by the non-artist masses. Actually, in my oppinion, it could mean exactly the opposite.

 

Depends what you want to achieve. Fame and respect within the art world with the risk of being considered weird, pervert, whatever by your neighbor OR a good and appreciating ($$$ included) relationship with the non-artist society while having a bitter taste of mediocrity in your mouth. You can also live a schizophrenic (sp?) life and have both of the two completely separated.

 

I'm sure there are ways in between too. I let somebody else evaluate those.

James - lots of women do look and enjoy to look at male bodies. Might be unbelievable for you, but i can't offer any proof; you believe me or test it yourself :)

 

Kelly - in this rare case i have to disagree with you (unless i/we misunderstood you). The test means nothing. There are plenty of things you don't show to your neighbors/relatives. I, for one, do not have sex in front of my neighbors or my relatives. I also like to close the door of the toilet. Still, nobody condemns me for having sex or urinating. Also, there are things that i do share with some people but i don't share with others, even if those "others" are closer to me, like relatives.

Let's dumb it down to an executive summary:

 

It's "art" if it's non-arousing and incomprehensible.

 

It's "erotic" if it arouses you or anyone you like.

 

It's "porn" if it arouses anyone you don't approve of.

The USA is a mixed bag of folks.<BR><BR> Some folks I have worked with could not be around any source of merriment. If a tiny birthday cake was brought to work for an old worker; the anti-merriment chaps would have to leave and go home. The merriment was considered totally revolting to them. <BR><BR>Some folks are offended by folks using a lawnmower; screwdriver; any tool on a Sunday. I have lived in places that no tools could be sold on a Sunday. Buying a drill-bit was illegal on a Sunday then. Only one chap in town would sell them illegally on a Sunday; it was like buying booze before one was an adult.<BR><BR> Some folks are offended by the cosmo magazines at the grocery store checkouts; they show too much skin. Some stores have a one checkout where "this porno" is not visible.<BR><BR> Here in the USA it is ok for kids to see a zillion killings on TV in the movies; in video games; and TV soap-operas with loosers that are always running around after marriage. BUT a boob shown on TV will cause the entire boob-police to go nuts.<BR><BR> In doing print work for the public; most all customers consider their own work to be art. When working in Japan; it was interesting to see what the Japanese Playboys showed; radically less than the USA, But it was weird to see the subways were men were viewing graphic artwork of sexual stuff. When in Singapore the movies there were edited so much that some lost their plots; the censoring stuff thrown away. The Singapore chaps were always buying the unedited versions; when visting our SoCalifornia factories; to bring back home. <BR><BR>What is considered "offensive" varies where you live. Usually folks that have not traveled have a much narrower tolerance; and think "their little world" is the only way. <BR><BR>

It is interesting to learn what is offensive to others. On my first business trip to Japan decades ago ; I wrote some small micro notes on a Japanese chaps card given to me; after the meeting. I wrote how to pronouce his name; and what is job skills were on the front of the card. I was told after the meeting that this was very offensive. I had been doing this for decades in the US; as a way to learn more. The Japanese business had no wastebaskets in site. There was beer and cold coffee in vending machines on the street by the hotel.

1. I don't find photo.net to be anti-erotic art. In fact the site allows some lattitude to porn with some artistic merit. I've done some male nudes recently and got possitive comments here (though I feel they would have scored better if they had been female). <p>

 

2. There are two tacks to tack on is it art or is it porn. Either "Do I react to it sexually or aesthetically" (the eye of the beholder argument) or "Does the maker want me to respond sexually or aesthetically" There is a third tack taken by the puritanical "Might anyone react sexually". <p>

 

With my own work I have a rule which says if I feel the need to keep it to myself it is probably a vice, otherwise it might be art. <p>

 

<b>Alton</b> I'm interested that you talk about "bluring the lines", and that suggests to me that for some people you're crossing them. I'm interested in <i>Ambiguity</i> and the role of the viewer's interpretation ... I've got a picture named <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/2109347">Stroke</a>

Now if I'd called it "Foreplay" it would have carried one meaning (and said something about my intent) but I could equally have named it "Comfort" that would have said something entirely different.

Playing with those boundaries, it's kind of interesting.

<p><i>for every David there are entire walls at the National Gallery filled with paintings of women.</i>

 

<p><i>Seems like the voters have spoken.</i>

 

<p>I guess I'd be more impressed with this line of argument if I knew the ratio of male to female artists whose works are represented on the walls of the National Gallery, and if I knew the ratio of male to female exhibit curators who decided which works were hung on the gallery walls rather than placed in storage, and the ratio of males to females who influence the Gallery's funding, and so on. Your point is taken, and I personally think it has merit, but things aren't so simple as a mere reduction to ratios of exhibited subject matter.

 

<p><i>There are two tacks.... Either "Do I react to it sexually or aesthetically" (the eye of the beholder argument) or "Does the maker want me to respond sexually or aesthetically" There is a third tack taken by the puritanical "Might anyone react sexually".</i>

 

<p>I'm not sure I fully follow what you are saying here. I guess my question would be: Can an artist create a work with the intention that part of the audience's reaction would be sexual, and succeed in that intention, and still be creating art? I would answer the question yes.

 

When Picasso painted <i>Guernica</i> the intent was overtly manipulative, but I don't think there is any consensus that the painting was not art because the artist deliberately intended to provoke a visceral reaction in the painting's viewers. The artist making a work that provokes a sexual response is just substituting one visceral reaction (arousal) for another (fight-flight response in the case of <i>Guernica</i>).

 

<p><i>With my own work I have a rule which says if I feel the need to keep it to myself it is probably a vice, otherwise it might be art.</i>

 

<p>Speaking of Picasso, <i>Les Demoiselles d'Avignon</i> fits into this category, doesn't it? So it would seem to be not so much a matter of eroticism or porn potential or whatever, but of how shy the artist is about that particular work. After all, it wasn't the nudity that motivated him, but probably something like Braque's alleged remark about kerosene.

 

<p>I think Will Perlis gives by far the best description of the lines between art, erotic art, and pornography that have been offered here. I like his executive summary because it is a functional defintition. I think that, outside of workers in the sex industry, such lines are not drawn by artist, subject, or society; but by the audience. It is porn, or not, depending on what use the viewer puts the work to. In this the viewer has the potential to be as manipulative as the artist, and many audiences are eager to be as manipulative as possible.

<em>It's a meaningless, idiotic test. What the philistines next door think couldn't possibly

be of less importance in a discussion about what is art.</em>

<p>

Mark - you need to move:-)

Assorted thoughts on the above-

"Art" implies that the attractiveness of the work is more than just the attractiveness of the subject.

"Erotic Art" implies that it is "Art", but also appeals to us (or to somebody) in a sensual way.

"Pornography" implies that the its appeal is only in a sensual way.

 

An example that may illustrate- suppose you have a nude lady sitting there, and you take a picture. Does that picture have any more attractiveness than if you were there in the flesh looking at the nude lady? In the case of porn- no. In some nude photos, yes, the photo is more attractive than the original scene was. In others, no.

 

Another example- Mr. Mapplethorpe. I'm not a big fan of his. But if I recall right, he did some very erotic-looking pictures of flowers. It was obviously his lighting and craftsmanship that made his pictures worthwhile, not just the fact that he had a nude person sitting in front of the camera, and he could do this whether the subject was male or female, human or vegetable.

 

The idea of beauty- it is assumed by some above that women are not inherently any more attractive than men. But it seems we have some biases built into us from the start, and others perhaps culturally ingrained. One of those biases is that women ought to be beautiful, while with men, it is just not considered so important. Look at the malls- 75% women's clothing and shoes. Look at the cosmetics industry- 100% women. Sean Connery can be a leading man in his 60's, would that work with a woman? You might notice that there are tons of flower pictures out there....but not many dirt pictures. Flowers and dirt are right together, they coexist, yet we view one as beautiful and desirable, and the other is just there to support the flower.

 

Some above have mentioned the role of religion (or lack of it) in the modern views, and I think they have missed the point. For example, in the case of the woman nursing a baby- this was a common public site up until relatively recent times. And in fact, public nursing has become less acceptable while religion in general has declined. This seems to be more of a social issue than a religious one. If you go look at any museum of art over the centuries, there has always been a good bit of nudity in it, even when the Catholic Church was in control of it.

 

Sexual attitudes among different groups of religious people have varied considerably, even among Christians. Many of the attitudes that you'll find are not inherent in Christianity. For example, you'll find from the Song of Solomon and a couple of comments of Paul's in the NT, that the idea of sex as recreation is very much there. The emphasis of the writers tends to be on who one has sex with, rather than why or how.

 

I think one thing that tends to be overlooked is how we deal with privacy. Did you ever wonder why a restroom in a house is a private little room, used by one person at a time? We'll build houses with 3 restrooms, but have you ever seen a modern house with 3 toilets in one restroom? The reason is that we expect and desire privacy about certain issues. It's not because taking a crap is wrong or naughty or sinful. It's just something most of us would rather not share with the world. And this transfers into the world of photography also. Most of us wouldn't take a photo of someone taking a crap, regardless of how wonderful the light might be.

 

The thinking about sexuality is similar in many ways. The nude body is natural and is good, and sex is natural and good. But that doesn't mean it is something that should be shared among the public. Some people want to make sex into a spectator sport, while others think it should remain something very personal.

 

By the way, I remember reading, several years back, a book on the Arapaho of the 1800's. According to the book, they just didn't normally discuss sex, period, even with their kids. They weren't Christians, and as far as I know, had no religious grounds for this. Rather it was just a cultural thing, that they felt certain things should be private, and not publically discussed.

<b>Jeff</b> <I>

There are two tacks.... Either "Do I react to it sexually or aesthetically" (the eye of the beholder argument) or "Does the maker want me to respond sexually or aesthetically" There is a third tack taken by the puritanical "Might anyone react sexually". <p>

 

I'm not sure I fully follow what you are saying here. I guess my question would be: Can an artist create a work with the intention that part of the audience's reaction would be sexual, and succeed in that intention, and still be creating art? </i><p>

 

Try it the other way. If you don't react sexually, and the creator didn't intend you to react sexually it isn't porn.<br>

I guess one COULD make an argument that says Guernica is propaganda not art. Or even that some pictures which have no more to them than "pretiness" are something other than art. <p>

 

I'm generally happier saying what something is than what it isn't. You can certainly have art which is erotic and erotica which is artistic. But generally we use "Porn" for stuff which is erotic, but without any pretention to be art...

I wish I had more time to wade through the replies (I'm not sure why I attempt browsing this section while I'm in the middle of work - grr), but I don't. So I'll just throw in my itsy bit of perspective:

 

In my humble opinion, as someone who's spent far too many years in art schools (but is quite wary of the term "artist" when applied to myself) and is fairly new to photography (18 months or so), photographers in general tend to be a rather uptight bunch compared to artists in general. Yeah yeah, I'm generalizing - crucify me.

Of course, I have nothing to back this up other than my own naive perspective (the same perspective that's discovered that many artists in general can be quite pretentious), but if the attitude of a lot of folks here on photo.net alone is any indication for the rest of the world's photographers, I think you'd all agree. ;)

 

I'd (honestly) love to hear what some of you folks think of the work of someone like Barbara Nitke.

I agree with James; any image (even images that contain no nudity) can be used for pornographic purposes, but it is easy to see when a photographer's intent is contemplation (of form, light, texture etc.) instead of masturbation. Perhaps that is why most artistic nudes are eerily unerotic; if they were, then it would be difficult to focus on what the photographer wants you to focus on.

 

However, I think the difference between erotic art and pornography is harder to describe than the difference between pornography and an unerotic still life photographs of the human body. For me, erotic art manages to be honest about sex (full-frontal/assertive nudity, sexual instead of aesthetic subject matter etc.) without encouraging you to go and relieve yourself. That is somewhat paradoxical, but it makes sense to me. It's not as erotic as honest, unpretentious pornography (which shouldn't be used a derogatory/dismissive term), but it isn't as sanitized as an artistic nude/human still life.

I think the line between eroticism and pornography has less to do with what or how much

is shown, and more to do with how the photograph handles tension. Pornography seeks to

release tension while eroticism seeks to create it. The dynamic photograph is erotic. The

static one tends to pornography.

 

An extreme example of this is the series of photographs that the artist Jeff Koons did of

himself having sex with his porn star wife. While the images contain all the hallmarks of

pornography--they are very, very explicit--they are not pornography because of what the

photographs do. Koons sets the photographs up as a critique of art market and pop

culture consumerism. In a magazine called Screw, the photographs would be simple porn.

In a gallery, editioned and carrying heavy prices that collectors are paying, the photos

become a critique of the market that is buying them. That is where the tension lies. I

wouldn't call them erotic. Perhaps ironic would be better.

 

In the early nineties I saw a photo essay in which a number of photographers had been

asked to submit an erotic photo. One of the pictures struck me as very effective and quite

unusual. It was a picture of a telephone handset at a public payphone hanging down by

the cord. It was very erotic in that context. Suddenly the handset hinted at phone

conversations and a hurried roundezvous.

 

It's all about the tension and what happens to it.