Are Erotic Art and Pornography Different?

The central question I shall ask in this paper is What, if anything, is the difference bet een erotic art and pornography?! I ill argue that though in "any cases they appear to be #astly different things, there are no essential differences bet een the t o, particularly hen e look at the" in a ti"e sensiti#e conte$t% &urther"ore, I ill sho that there e$ist no grounds to state that pornography can ne#er be art, e#en if in "any cases it is not% The ability to differentiate bet een pornography and erotic art has long been one of great i"portance% While calling so"ething intended to be art erotic! does not usually har" its reputation, calling so"ething pornographic! is a crippling blo % &or e$a"ple, co"pare the label of pornographic! to the label of being an authentic! painting in the fil" Who the #$&% Is Jackson Pollock? here this title is the difference bet een the painting being orth "illions of dollars or being a piece of trash in so"eone's garage% A fil", story, picture or any other kind of ork that is dee"ed pornographic is usually no longer dee"ed orthy of appreciation in the sa"e ay that one dee"ed to be art, e#en if erotic art% (o a discussion on ho e label such

things and if the distinction is purely arbitrary or if e ha#e so"e actual criteria is to deter"ine the labeling is not only useful but in actuality absolutely critical% The line bet een hat is "erely erotic and hat is pornographic has and continues to e#ol#e and change% &or e$a"ple, hen )ernardo )ertolucci's Last Tango in Paris as originally released, it as denounced as *pornography disguised as art%* Today it is recogni+ed as one of )ertolucci's finest achie#e"ents, ith "any of its contro#ersial erotic scenes ta"e by today's standards% Another e$a"ple of the changing standards of obscenity is the ,ays -ode that

./0

censored fil"s in the 1olden Age of ,olly ood% 2udity, stated or i"plied se$ outside of "arriage, and e#en "ild profanity ere not per"itted% In contrast, today "ost, if not all, of these can be seen on dayti"e tele#ision% 3any orks that e no re#ere as great e$a"ples of erotic art ere denounced for their e$plicit or obscene content in their ti"e% It is thus clear that standards of obscenity are continuously changing and this is a a"biguous criteria for deter"ining if so"ething is erotic art or pornography% Thus the difference bet een erotic art and pornography is si"ply a co"bination of the "orals of the ti"e and their percei#ed artistic "erit% When artistic "erit is not in question, the differences si"ply lie in the #alues of the society in hich the art is produced in% The question of the difference bet een erotic art and pornography has been ell studied% In his article Pornographic Art!, 3atthe 4ieran argues that the idea that pornographic art! is an o$y"oron is false% &urther"ore, he also argues that there are "any orks of art that are both pornographic and aesthetically significant% According to hi", pornography is a subset of erotic art that atte"pts to arouse desire% ,e deals ith se#eral co""on criticis"s of pornography as art% &irstly, he re5ects the idea that pornography cannot be art because it has the sole ai" of se$ual arousal, pointing out that 5ust because this is its pri"ary ai" doesn't pre#ent it fro" ha#ing other intentions as ell% ,e also re5ects the idea that the fact that "any 6or e#en "ost7 pornographic orks are ithout artistic "erit pre#ent the entire genre fro" being art% ,e counters that "any other for"s of art ha#e "any orks that ha#e no artistic "erit% 2o one, for e$a"ple, clai"s that no#els ha#e no artistic "erit because "any ro"ance no#els are for"ulaic% ,e also re5ects the idea that se$ual arousal being the pri"ary ai" di"inishes the aesthetic

8/0

#alue of such orks% ,e points out that "any orks of art that "ight be considered pornographic are far fro" for"ulaic but instead highly inno#ati#e, gi#ing the e$a"ples of the ritings of Anais 2in% ,e also state that e#en if the sub5ect "atter itself is for"ulaic, the artist can still e$press creati#ity in the actual representation% &inally, he argues that "any ell recogni+ed orks of art are, and to so"e degree, try to to be for"ulaic, gi#ing the e$a"ple of 9ohn &ord's The Searchers, one of the "ost critically acclai"ed Westerns of all ti"e% ,e also re5ects the idea that such orks cannot sustain both ai"s of arousal and aesthetic #alue, ha#ing to sacrifice one for the other% In su""ary, he clai"s, Pornographic orks can "ake i"aginati#e use of non:standard and standard for"ulaic ele"ents in order to be artistically e$pressi#e and thereby afford a qualitati#ely high i"aginati#e e$perience%!. In his article Erotic Art and Pornographic Pictures!, 9errod ;e#inson argues that nothing can succeed at being erotic art and pornography at the sa"e ti"e% ,e clai"s that erotic art and pornography are funda"entally different because they ai" at different kinds of receptions% Erotic art ai"s to sti"ulate but also re ard artistic interest!8, hile pornography si"ply atte"pts to se$ually arouse for the purpose of se$ual release% Thus these t o goals are co"pletely inco"patible% ,e also broadly categori+es the erotic into erotic art, erotica, and pornography% ,e also points out that erotic art and pornography are consu"ed in different ays% Erotic art is to be aesthetically appreciated, hereas pornography is to be used and consu"ed% ,e also considers possible argu"ents of "orality and e$plicitness, but re5ects the", ad"itting that there are no strict di#isions along these lines% Erotic art can be 5ust as e$plicit as pornography, and pornography need not be i""oral
. 4ieran, 3atthe % Ale$ 2eill and Aaron <idley, ed%, Arguing About Art= -onte"porary Philosophical Debates 62e >ork= <outledge, 8??@7= A0B 8 Ibid% A@8

A/0

,e argues that erotic art is not seen through! or seen past!% As in all art, e d ell on the features of the i"age itself C ho it is being represented, not 5ust on hat is being represented% ,e refers to this as erotic art being opaque% In contrast, he argues, in a pornographic i"age, the focus is on the person or people being represented% The goal is to forget that the "ediu" is e#en present% Instead of dra ing attention to itself, the "ediu" should present the ob5ect for se$ual fantasy #i#idly, and then, as it ere, get out of the ay%! In other ords the "ediu" should be transparent% This is the "ain reason, he argues, that pornography's pri"ary "ediu" is photography and fil"% ,e considers the argu"ents of 4ieran and then re5ects the argu"ents by saying that 4ieran does not actually consider any acutely pornography, but "erely things that rese"ble pornography% ,e argues that that there is pornographic art that is art that has a pornographic look or character!A but is not actually pornographic% ,e also argues that that it is i"possible to appreciate an i"age for se$ual arousal and si"ultaneously appreciate it for its aesthetic #alue% In his article Dra ing the ;ine= Art Dersus Pornography!, ,ans 3aes argues for the e$istence of pornographic art as a subcategory of erotic art% ,e re5ects the popular #ie that art and pornography are "utually e$clusi#e% &irst, 3aes considers a nu"ber of argu"ents for hy pornography cannot be art and pro#ides countere$a"ples to each one% 3ore generally, he gi#es e$a"ples of pornographic fil"s such as All About Anna that confor" to "ost criteria of an artistic fil", featuring realistic characters in realistic life situations, hile also containing unsi"ulated se$ual scenes hich are usually the do"ain of pornography%E ,e then focuses on responding to ;e#inson's argu"ents% ,e argues that one can ai" to
A ;e#inson, 9errod % Ale$ 2eill and Aaron <idley, ed%, Arguing About Art= -onte"porary Philosophical Debates 62e >ork= <outledge, 8??@7= A@B E 3aes, ,ans% *Dra ing the ;ine= Art Dersus Pornography%* Philosophy -o"pass B, no% B 69une ., 8?..7= A@@

E/0

gain t o inco"patible responses fro" a single ork, as long as one does not *e$pect these responses to be elicited at the sa"e ti"e, in the sa"e audience, by the sa"e part of the ork%!F &urther"ore, re5ects the clai" that all art is centered around aesthetic e$perience and that aesthetic e$perience in#ol#es disinterested appreciation of for"al features% ,e also considers the #ie s of so"e other philosophers and re5ects the" as ell% ,is final argu"ent consists of a t o ideas% &irst, that no one has been able to suggest any ay of differentiating bet een pornography and art that he has not been able to re5ect% &urther"ore, there e$ist "any e$a"ples that he lists that lie in the "iddle ground bet een art and pornography, being ell recogni+ed by the art orld, yet ould qualify as pornography under "ost if not all for"al definitions of pornography% 4ieran and 3aes both rely on the sa"e t o "ethods to sho that pornography can indeed be art% &irstly, they consider nu"erous potential counterargu"ents for hy pornography cannot be art% They then refute all of these argu"ents in #arious ays% They also pro#ide e$a"ples of orks that they belie#e falls in both categories% ,o e#er, they do not pro#ide any basis for hat e$actly separates the erotic art and pornography if they can be the sa"e things at ti"es% ;e#inson's "ain criteria is the transparency of the "ediu"% ,o e#er, he fails to take into account that there are "any fil"s hich ould be considered transparent in the sa"e ay, but yet are still considered significant artistic achie#e"ents because of so"e other co"ponent, such as the acting, plot, editing, and sound and #isual effects% ;e#inson uses a "o#ing goalpost argu"ent to refute the countere$a"ples pro#ided% Essentially, dis"isses the countere$a"ples pro#ided by arguing that they are not in fact pornography, but si"ply erotic art that appears to be
F 3aes, ,ans% *Dra ing the ;ine= Art Dersus Pornography%* Philosophy -o"pass B, no% B 69une ., 8?..7= AGA

F/0

pornography, because they ha#e artistic "erit% While ;e#inson is correct in the "ost superficial ay, his argu"ent only orks because he defines ter"s to "ake his argu"ent ork% I take the argu"ents of 4ieran and 3aes further% While they argue that pornography can be art I re5ect the clai" that pornography and erotic art different things at all% In essence, I argue that the difference bet een erotic art and pornography is the difference bet een a highbro ork of fiction and and a cheap pulp fiction no#el% They use the sa"e "ediu", for the sa"e o#erarching purpose of con#eying a narrati#e, ith the only difference being the a#erage artistic quality% ;ike cheap pulp fiction, pornography is "eant to be "ass produced cheaply to be sold at a profit and thus often has little artistic "erit% ,o e#er, it ould be perfectly possible to ha#e a ell ritten pulp fiction no#el, as riters like Dashiell ,a""ett sho ed, but the a#erage one is not% In a si"ilar ay, pornographic fil"s of high artistic quality can also e$ist, e#en if they are not the nor"% This resol#es se#eral issues that these authors faced% It e$plains hy the sa"e art ork has been considered pornography for a hile and later been ree#aluated as erotic art, hen the "oral standards of society change but the artistic "erit re"ains the sa"e% It also re"o#es the need to try to anticipate counterargu"ents and fro" ha#ing to find e$a"ples that ould lie in a "iddle ground and defend hy they are still pornographic% The difference bet een erotic art and pornography is not a sharp line, but a spectru" bet een erotic orks that generally ha#e aesthetic "erits and erotic orks that are generally ithout% Thus to say that pornography cannot be art is co"pletely "eaningless%

B/0

Works -ited 3aes, ,ans% *Dra ing the ;ine= Art Dersus Pornography%* Philosoph !o"pass B, no% B 69une ., 8?..7= A@F:AG0% Philosopher#s In$e%, E)(-Hhost 6accessed Dece"ber .0, 8?.A7% 4ieran, 3atthe % Ale$ 2eill and Aaron <idley, ed%, Arguing About Art& !onte"porar Philosophical 'ebates 62e >ork= <outledge, 8??@7 ;e#inson, 9errod % Ale$ 2eill and Aaron <idley, ed%, Arguing About Art& !onte"porar Philosophical 'ebates 62e >ork= <outledge, 8??@7

0/0