Lines between art, erotic art, and pornography

[joe604]

This thread has had a good discussion about the definition of pornography, but I believe that it is largely a red herring. (The only thing that would have been worse is a debate about the definition of art.) In spite of the title of this thread, I believe that the issue that Alton initially raised was primarily that of censorship. Unfortunately, Alton chose to characterize the censorship as that of pornography rather than offensive material. The implication is that if an erotic work is removed from this site, then it must simply have been porn (at least in the judgment of the moderators). The inverse of this argument is that if the erotic work is not censored, then it must have some redeeming artistic quality that saves it from the dreaded porn stigma.

 

I don't buy it. I think the initial premise of the question is flawed. I have seen enough porn to know that some can be very artistic. And I believe that some of the nudes with artistic poses, lighting, and composition are also too sexually explicit for an unrestricted site like this one. I don't believe that there will be any definition of pornography that will define what should be censored from this site.

 

A censorship debate should focus on what sexual content is too offensive for this site (or other particular sites because offensiveness depends of the venue). Pornography would be only one of the factors in the equation to quantify offensiveness.

 

--Joe

[james_oneill]

Jeff. You're taking me too literally when you quote <i>If it's arousing it is erotic. If it is aesthetically pleasing "erotic art" is probably the right label for it. </i> and <i>If it doesn't care if it is or not, then "Porn". </i> Let me put it another way. <p>

 

My definition of Porn is erotic work where the erotic content is the sole consideration. Porn doesn't much care if it is good or bad photography, or pleasing to the eye. <br>

Defining art is harder than defining porn, it doesn't depend on being pleasing to the eye, but to be specific a nude which is shot to show the body as a fascinating beautiful thing <i>can</i> go in the pile marked art and a shot intended assist someone jerking off belongs in the pile marked porn. "Not Porn" isn't the same as "Is art", just as "Not Art" = "Is porn" there's a large slice of "Glamour" photography which is too dull and lacking in creativity to be called art , and doesn't meet the erotic bar to qualify as porn. <p>

 

You ask if art really cares about anything - Yes, it does. Take Guernica for example; Picasso certainly cared about something. Generally non-abstract artists want to show us something and show it in a particular way. They're not always concerned with being pretty. <p>

Again <i>if it is not interesting photographically it has no place on photo.net.</i> is something you have taken too literally. If someone uploads pictures which are of no interest to even a small minority of the user base here (and that includes students who've used this as a free site for posting party photos) then they shouldn't be here. It's not the taste of one person that determines what stays or goes.

 

you say <i>I don't think that "interesting" is the only valid end to which photography can be legitimately put. I'm happy to see photographs that appeal to or manipulate all sorts of human emotions</i> I would have said that appealing to or manipulating emotions was a dimension of "interesting" perhaps "Engaging" would be a better term. Porn only engages you on a sexual level. Art engages you on other levels (Aesthetic being only one).

[magumi]

This is exactly where I disagree. I cannot imagine any situation whatsoever, where this image could serve as a pornographic material for anyone (no to mention the fact that pedophiles won?t bother with browsing photo.net when they can freely share their child porn via P2P and ICQ networks), but I am quite positive that a nipple of a two-year old girl has the potential to raise furore among all the hypocritical guardians of the so-called middle class morals who use the pedophile alert argument to mask their own prejudices and the fear of the slightest demonstration of nudity as well as the dirty minds of their own.

[magumi]

Of course, I was referring to Joe and Kathy Sandford's coment. BTW, <A HREF="http://www.kulaphotography.com/taschen.html">this portfolio</A> is an excellent example of pictures, which are very explicit sexually, and yet an outstanding piece of fine-art photography. Still, I know many people, who would not hesitate to rank the photos among pornography regardless of their artistic qualities.

[jeff medkeff anchorage, a]

<p>Dan wrote:

 

<p><i>Jeff, unless I'm mistaken, I think your argument was, once we define pornography as that work which has as it's purpose the stimulation of sexual desire - then it is logical ... to extend that definition to all ... works which ... stimulate desires of any kind.</i>

 

<p>No, I'm not really arguing that. I wouldn't say 'desires <i>of any kind</i>,' I am referring only to human <i>instinctive</i> desires. The sort of desire or feeling that every human being in all of history has experienced because they are inherent to being a human (supposing normal fetal development, etc).

 

<p><i>I would argue that one can come to a objective definition of what is truely pornographic.</i>

 

<p>I'm inclined to agree with you.

 

<p><i>one immediately apparent flaw is the assumption that all human desires are equal. I won't elaborate on that point except to state that it seems obvious to me that the expression of sexual desire carries with it political, social, ethical, pscyhological and physical dimensions not associated with the expression of other desires.</i>

 

<p>Desire for food has resulted in interpersonal hostility (a social dimension), killing and maiming (ethical and physical), alliances and genocide (political), eating disorders (psychological and physical), and so forth. So I guess it is not as obvious to me that expression of sexual desire carries with it implications that are entirely absent from the expression of other human instinctive desires. I would say there is a <i>qualitative difference</i> between how those implications are <i>expressed</i>: being raped is different from having your skull crushed so that someone can steal your food. I would strongly deny that either of those situations was anything other than a very serious moral issue, though.

 

<p>One of my reasons for stressing this is to point out the difficulty of using a moral argument to define pornography. (Arguments in which a work is said to be "good," "bad," or to "have no aesthetic appeal" or "no interest other than sexual," etc, are all moralistic arguments, because they make or express a judgement about the merit of a work.)

 

<p>Such arguments from sex can be applied to cheeseburgers and, in a time and place where hunger is a big problem, their moral significance is as great as the moral significance of sex is to us. But when those arguments are applied to cheesburgers <i>in the here and now</i>, those arguments appear patently ridiculous - my evidence for this is your protesting against them!

 

<p>But I think such arguments really <i>are</i> patently ridiculous, as applied to pornography and sex, in the here and now; we just tend not to see that because of our presuppositions and biases.

 

<p><i>The other flaw is that an argument for the definition of pornography based on a stimulation of sexual desire should not assume that it lies at one end of a continuum starting with portraits at one end and passing through photography of nudes and 'erotic art' and glamour etc.</i>

 

<p>I'm in total agreement with you here. Perhaps I've been unclear if I've given you the opposite impression. In any case, I'm proposing defining pornography in a functional way based on how the audience uses the work. Granting Freud some points, I suppose it is possible that someone out there finds pictures of Greek columns in ruins to be pornographic, because of their phallic appearance. If so, this certainly destroys the continuum, as you point out.

 

<p>James wrote:

 

<p><i>Porn doesn't much care if it is good or bad photography, or pleasing to the eye. </i>

 

<p>I guess where I get into difficulties there is that I have a hard time thinking of an art work as "caring" about anything. (I grant an exception for of Gilbert and George, I guess.) I don't actually understand what you mean when you say that something inanimate can have a feeling, so it is hard for me to respond. For example:

 

<p><i>You ask if art really cares about anything - Yes, it does. Take Guernica for example; Picasso certainly cared about something.</i>

 

<p>Yeah, <i>Picasso</i> cared about something. But <i>Guernica</i>? That's just paint and canvas (or whatever medium it is); can it really feel? If, a million years from now, <i>Guernica</i> is uncovered in an archaeological expedition, and Picasso is unremembered, does <i>Guernica</i> care about anything?

 

<p>In other respects, I appreciate your further comments - I think you bring a lot of value to the discussion.

[hlp]

Well...i think that we could discust this issues till kingdom come...one participant incapsuladed the complete inchilada...mr.Perris...."art is not arousing and incomprehensible by most ...erotic art is when it arouses you and people you like and it's porn when it's arousing for people you disaprove of ....this is very profound and close to the "verite" stop for a second and think of this...the body is the unique envelope of our soul ... so let's be kind and respectful of it...men came to this world with nothing over his skin and there is beauty to every creation of this world...my eyes, your eyes only see our many reflections,we all have the power to be good of evil it is a choice we all must take ...when we abandon respect we abandon our self to our dark side/our destructive side ....capturing the reflection of the human body on a piece of cellulose or sampling it's form and many shadows with ones and zeros or simply enjoying what our eyes transmit to our brain is all based on one thing, perception,but man has evolved therefore we carry the responsibility of receiving this information within our singular and unique soul....and then carry the weight of our thoughts....it's a matter of choosing to live weigthed down by darkness of enjoying life......cheers

[aricmayer]

...except that you are dodging a genuine issue that has real world implications.

 

How one defines pornography and where it it differs from art has a real impact on how

organizations and governments define obscenity laws and what is showable and what is

not. Newt Gingrich orchestrated the Republican takeover of the House of Representatives

in the 1980's by villifying Robert Mapplethorpe, Andres Serrano and the National

Endowment for the Arts. Their images were instrumental to the reactionary Republican

campaign. As a result, the NEA support for individual artists was dismantled and the

Republicans have such a majority hold in the House that it is unlikely that they will be

shaken for many years. All of it was orchestrated around the issues being bandied about in

this thread, pornography, eroticism, art, and censorship.

 

If that isn't worth wrestling with, I don't know what is. Currently, the inability to

distinguish between porn and art has resulted in a wholesale abandonment of government

arts programs. As of a few years ago, the city of Berlin had a larger budget for supporting

the arts than the entire country of the United States. That seems pretty real to me.

[joe604]

Very well said. In fact, it is so well said that I should not detract from it by nitpicking. But, alas, I can't help it, so please forgive me. <p><p>

 

Defining pornography has <i>nothing</i> to do with how governments define obscenity laws. They know it would be an impossible quagmire. Obscenity laws are about what sexual content is <i>offensive</i> -- pornography is never mentioned. Similarly, censorship is about sexual content that is offensive, and not what is pornography vs. art. For example, it doesn't matter how many Oscars a great film is destined to win -- if it has one little bitty peek of something that is deemed too offensive, then it is toast till the scene is removed. <p><p>

 

Pornography is an important social issue, especially in this era of the internet. And the distinction between erotic art and pornography is an important issue with artists. And this has been an interesting thread. But I now believe that in any debate about censorship or obscenity laws, focusing on a definition of pornography is a red herring. <p><p>

 

My apologies again for nitpicking. <p><p>

 

--Joe

[nee_sung]

Porn is art, too.

[aricmayer]

Joe,

 

The words obscenity and pornography in

popular parlance are often used almost interchangeably when discussing images that have

graphic sexual content. Arguing for a definition of one is really

arguing for an expanded understanding of both.

 

Lacking that, the system is ripe for abuse along the lines that I described above. You may

find it a red herring here, but the debate is real and necessary if you want to be able to

meaningfully address freedom of expression issues, particularly surrounding sex.

[beauh44]

I have a favorite quote that I try to keep in mind when photographing nudes. I can't recall who said it: "To suggest is to create; To define is to destroy". I guess this can be summed up at least in part (and a bit over-simplistically) by comparing a Playboy magazine to Hustler. The latter is a bit too gynecologically oriented for my tastes. Best wishes . . .

[jeff medkeff anchorage, a]

<p><i>But I now believe that in any debate about censorship or obscenity laws, focusing on a definition of pornography is a red herring.</i>

 

<p>I tend to agree with you, Joe & Kathy, that defining pornography is a red herring in a debate about censorship. I believe we can come up with such a definition, and I have great faith that the censors will studiously ignore it when deciding what to censor.

 

<p>I think it was the late Chuck Jones, of Warner Brothers cartoon fame (Bugs Bunny and the like), who referred to censors as being too stupid to fight and too fat to run away. His further comments made it more clear that he thought that censors simply censored whatever they didn't like, without any particular understanding of audience or art, and I agree. Few show any signs of understanding their behaviour or the material they pass judgment upon. In this respect censors are barely sentient.

 

<p>So of course defining pornography probably won't alter anything a censor does. But that doesn't mean that it is improper for philosophers to make the attempt. Heck, trying is justified simply on the basis of the intellectual enjoyment one gets from the process, in my opinion. Carefully thinking a topic through may not be considered good recreation by everyone, but I kind of enjoy it sometimes, and this thread has been really challenging and thought-provoking. I've enjoyed it immensely, even though I've been advancing some highly arguable and probably incorrect positions.

 

<p>And to those who deride the whole process as nothing more than meaningless words having no significance - well, those monkeys can grunt, hoot, and scratch their underarms all they want.

 

<p>Beau writes: <i>I have a favorite quote that I try to keep in mind when photographing nudes. I can't recall who said it: "To suggest is to create; To define is to destroy".</i>

 

<p>What the heck does that mean?

 

<p>The question is serious. I've done some medical photography - very representational with no artistic intentions whatever - but I don't think those pictures destroyed anything. As to whether those shots could be anything other than simple representations, some of those pictures have been really inspiring to some of the people who saw them, even ones that were just straight images of a piece of textbook anantomy.

 

<p>The way I read your post, it sounds like you are saing that "straight photography" and anything done by the likes of Group f/64 is destructive, as a result of its tendency to depict its subject in a clinical manner (to extend your gynecological metaphor). But can St. Ansel, Weston, Imogen Cunningham, and the rest really be said to have created destructive depictions of their subjects? (Are Cunningham's nudes really destructive? If so, in what way?) Probably I've missed the whole point of the statement.

 

<p>I am genuinely interested to learn what the meaning of the quotation is, if it has any.

[will_perlis]

Beau writes: I have a favorite quote that I try to keep in mind when photographing nudes. I can't recall who said it: "To suggest is to create; To define is to destroy".

 

"What the heck does that mean?"

 

I think it relates to fostering creativity in general. I.e. suggesting that something interesting might be obtained by employing small apertures and great DOF is one thing, insisting that using f/64 is the only way to get a good picture is quite another.

 

With respect to defining pornography and differentiating it from erotica, where's the utility in a serious attempt? Unless one is a D.A. or Congresscritter up for election and can then demonstate one is against it or one's opponent is favoring it, there's not much to be gained.

[jeff medkeff anchorage, a]

<p><i>With respect to defining pornography and differentiating it from erotica, where's the utility in a serious attempt?</i>

 

<p>The utility of it is identical to the utility of taking an artistic nude photograph.

[will_perlis]

"The utility of it is identical to the utility of taking an artistic nude photograph."

 

You mean, just because it's fun? Having survived any number of late-night solve-the-problems-of-the universe sessions, some while chemically enhanced and some sober, I'll buy that.

[james_oneill]

<b>Jeff</b> you're being to litteral again I said "Porn doesn't much care ...", you replied "<i>I guess where I get into difficulties there is that I have a hard time thinking of an art work as "caring" about anything</i>" <p>

 

I said "You ask if art really cares about anything - Yes, it does. Take Guernica for example; Picasso certainly cared about something." you replied "<I> Yeah, Picasso cared about something. But Guernica? That's just paint and canvas (or whatever medium it is); can it really feel?</I>"<p>

 

Obviously a print isn't sentient. When we talk about feeling and caring, we're talking about the process of creating art and creating porn and what regard they have for anything else. If a picture sets out to turn people on and NOTHING else ... it's porn. Something might have greater erotic content but if it sets out to do more than sexually arouse then I don't put it in the pile marked "Porn" - which doesn't mean it is art.

[jeff medkeff anchorage, a]

<p><i>When we talk about feeling and caring, we're talking about the process of creating art and creating porn and what regard they have for anything else.</i>

 

<p>I don't agree at all that I was being "too literal" in reading your statements. Saying "art cares" is not a less literal way of saying the above, it is merely a nonsensical and obfuscatory way of saying it.

 

<p>In any case, this assertion that "art cares" boils down to the old argument presented quite some time ago above, that the intention of the artist defines whether something is porn or not. I've already rejected that line of argument, and given several reasons for doing so. You yourself say that porn engages a person on exclusively a sexual level, while art engages a person in other ways, which suggests that you agree the intention of the artist is at least not the <i>only</i> consideration, while the manner of consumption of the work is at least partially to the point. If that is so, I think you are right.

[beauh44]

<I>What the heck does that mean?</i><P>I'm a little surprised that it would have to be spelled out for you, but here goes - I believe the author intended something like this: The <I>suggestion</i> of eroticism (for example) is preferable to actually defining it in a photograph and a photographer who can fire up the viewer's <I>imagination</i> is doing better than one who feels compelled to show what amounts to a gynecology lesson in medical school. Think Playboy versus Hustler. Another example from an entirely different genre - horror films. Think about Alfred Hitchcock's "shower scene" in the movie "Psycho". We don't see anyone actually get stabbed. We hear those screaching violins, see shadows, and then blood going down the drain. Hitchcock successfully <I>suggested</i> the murder. Would the scene have been more effective for you if he'd actually <I>shown</i> the victim being hacked to death? Your imagination can do far more with it than even Hitchcock could have. Capiche?

[smedly64]

Bull, Bull, Bull,

Porn is a multiBillon dollor business. Titilation for pay. Some fun, some creative, some garbage.

I like it but do not create it.

Erotica to me is some of the 19th century media. Porn of a different era.

Its about money.....

Dress it up in Hustler, purify it in Playboy, call it art, some of it definatly is. Take the high road, take the low road. Whatever!

We are driven by survival.. Procreate or die, find food or die, our main drives control our output.

[beauh44]

<I>Bull, Bull, Bull, Porn is a multiBillon dollor business.</i><P>

 

I'm not arguing with you - although I certainly don't agree! LoL... What's porn being a billion dollar business have to do with the price of tea in China or the lines between art erotic art and pornography?<P>

 

Look, I'm just defining it for <I>me</i> not you. I was asked "What the heck does that mean?" with regards to a quote I used so I replied, that's all.<P>

 

<I>Erotica to me is some of the 19th century media.</i><P>

 

Fine, whatever floats your boat.<P>

 

<I>Its about money..... Dress it up in Hustler, purify it in Playboy</i><P>

 

On a small tangent - I was talking about this topic the other day with my dad. I recall back in the '70s when magazines like Hustler, Penthouse and High Society came about. It seemed to me much about shock value - my god! They're showing pubic hair! (Playboy swore it never would... that didn't last long!)<P>

 

Now look at what's happened to Bob Guccione (Talking about money) He's broke and quite possibly destitute for all I know. He can't give away a Penthouse magazine. Now look at the "Laddy Mags" like Maxim - which doesn't even show nudity at all - it's going gangbusters. People got tired of the shock value. I think most people would rather use their imaginations a bit than having what's "supposed" to turn them on spelled out for them.<P>

 

<I>Take the high road, take the low road. Whatever!</i><P>

 

I'm not taking any road at all. I just defined it for me just as you did for yourself, above. I could just as easily shout "Bull, Bull, Bull" about your opinion(s) too, but I won't. I don't <I>care</i> what your opinion is about porn, erotica or anything else to be honest, and I'm sure the feeling is mutual.<P>

 

As everyone's finding out (big surprise) it's impossible to define these things across the board for everyone. Show "Debbie Does Dallas" to most men and they'll yawn. Show it to Jerry Falwell and he'll freak out. It's a personal thing.<P>

 

<I>We are driven by survival.. Procreate or die, find food or die, our main drives control our output.</i><P>

 

Yes, but do our "main drives" as you so eloquently put it necessarily have to control our art? Instead of playing music, why not listen to primitive people grunting?<P>

 

Another quick aside: We had a rather large photograph of The Statue of David hanging in our living room when I was a kid. I recall once a plumber or some workman coming over to fix something and asking my mother "Why in the WORLD would you have something like THAT hanging in your LIVING ROOM?" He thought it was "porn".<P>

 

My father taught college English for 40 years and even got away with an Erotic Lit course at a fairly conservative southern college. He often liked to point out that even the Bible has The Song of Solomon.<P>

 

This can and will be debated until everyone's blue in the face. The best you can do is simply define it for <I>you</i> and that's all.

[jeff medkeff anchorage, a]

<p>Beau, I think I understand you now - you are saying that a hint or suggestion of eroticism is better than a straight depiction of something erotic, I think.

 

<p>I think that is a fine sentiment and probably the only one that is likely to lead to anything like originality in figure studies, so I hate to quibble with it. But I think it is an easthetic judgement call, and not one that is very useful for distinguishing porn from erotic art and non-erotic art.

 

<p><i>Would the [Psycho] scene have been more effective for you if he'd actually shown the victim being hacked to death?</i>

 

<p>Effective in what way? Frankly, that famous scene left me wondering why it was so famous to begin with. Many say it was a very frightening scene. As I watched it my main reaction was "oh, this must be that really famous scene." I doubt it could have been more effective at commanding my forensic and critical attention - a result of its fame. It could undoubtedly have been far more effective at being frightening for me. I consider it a basically neutral question whether it could have been more effective at telling the viewer of the film that Marion Crane had been murdered.

 

<p>My personal reaction to this film was probably heavily colored by two things. The first would have been the innumerable caricatures and parodies of the scene elsewhere in the culture. The second would be the fact that I first saw the movie not long after military service during which I saw many things which were both much more frightening and emotionally engaging than anything in the movie <i>Psycho</i>.

 

<p>Which just goes to illustrate that any definition of porn which depends upon things like aesthetic judgements or artist intentions is likely to run aground promptly. Just as the shower scene in <i>Psycho</i> was fairly ineffective <i>to me</i>, avowed and intended pornography that utilizes schoolgirl uniforms is ineffective <i>to me</i> (except possibly as the best response to the label on a poisonous product which advises the accidental ingester to "induce vomiting"). These things are perhaps too dependent upon a person's preferred aesthetics and personal tastes to be reliable indicators of the presence or absence of porn generally.

 

<p>It still seems to me that pornography is best defined by the role it plays for the consumer. You support my opinion most eloquently when you say:

 

<p><i>Show "Debbie Does Dallas" to most men and they'll yawn. Show it to Jerry Falwell and he'll freak out. It's a personal thing.</i>

[aricmayer]

If Jerry Falwell's actual track record regarding illicit sex is taken into account, I think he'll

yawn too.

[aricmayer]

Ooops, sorry.

 

I confused Falwell with Jim Bakker, his predecessor. Or was it Jimmy Swaggert? It's hard to

keep them all straight, they are so crooked. What ever happened to Tinky Winky anyway?

 

Cheers.

[john falkenstine]

I'm always curious (erotic-not) if Jerry Fallwell has ever really had sex and why none of the talk-show hosts have the courage to simply ask him "Jerry, do you know how the birds and bees actually do it?".......and how much grits he eats every day. Whenever I see him I always feel like I need to change my clothing and take a shower right away. He looks like the type that shouldn't be left alone with children....As for the original posting, why is he telling us this?

[vatovec]

So it seems the dispute is over. I agree with most of You. For myself i cannot say i see a difference between erotic art and porn, actually i`m not sure if pornography really exists, as with art which i guess doesn`t exist anymore or is everywhere - u choose.

 

What do u all think of this?

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=221623