The difference between pornography and art is notoriously subjective, but--like a lot of controversies--I hope I can further the discussion with a modest blog post. Who knows, if both people that read this tell two others, then that's four people. Four people is pretty good. And including me, that's actually five people.
Without the use of pictures, I will explain how pornography fails to be art in one of two ways:
1) It is technically impressive. The best paintings and sculptures of nude models require a craft beyond most people, educationally or physically. This is not meant to be a charge against the art of filmmaking or photography, as painting can be lazy in some regards. However, pornography usually goes down the avenue of film and photography because they are most dependent on technology and least dependent on the individual's personal ability. This discrepancy is easy to spot in nearly every case, as the intentions of the "artist" show through. The one argument to this is that it takes a skilled technician to glamorize Playboy photos (and the like) beyond the realms of reality--trick lighting, airbrushing, etc. However, this is countered by my second point.
2) The art piece is bigger than the subject matter. In pornography, the subject matter (a naked person) is the sole appeal and completely determines the value of the pornography in question. Playboy doesn't hire the most skilled photographers it can, it hires the most beautiful girls it can. Porno films are the same way, in that the actors and actresses are chosen for their physical attributes and are viewed by people seeking those physical attributes. Pablo Picasso's "Les Demoiselles d' Avignon" (The Young Ladies of Avignon) is more than just five naked ladies. It raises questions and challenges conventions. Technical skill aside, it doesn't solely (if at all) appeal to raw human desires, but appeals to the mind and intellect.
A picture, painting, movie, sculpture or literary description of a naked body is no different from the same of a car. That's not to say the subject them self is like a car, but that the piece they are depicted in is no different (ignoring the angle of "shock value"). A picture of a car must be more than just the car, from a technical, emotional or intellectual standpoint.
I am willing to apply the same rules to cars and bodies that I apply to all art. If someone can honestly point to a piece and say, "that is more than the subject, that piece is worth more than it's material value"; than I will point to the same piece and say, "that is art."
ENDING NOTE: Some days ago Tyson articulated, what I feel to be a pretty interesting point on the identification of art and that is that context is key. Because a piece (movie, sculpture, painting, photograph, etc) is in a building that houses "art"--i.e. an art gallery--it's contains are art regardless of their aesthetic appeal. I suppose this goes in line with intentions though. People go to different places for different reasons and creators seek different venues for different reasons. Still...I haven't figured out a rule that eliminates exceptions. Perhaps this shouldn't be a goal.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think you have yourself a pretty solid thesis here. Now just expand it, get a doctorate specializing in the art of pornography, and you are set for life.
ReplyDeleteI think you're right.
ReplyDeleteWhile pornography is not art, art can employ the language of pornography. Ex. Jeff Koons exhibited large scale photographs of his pornstar wife, Illona, and himself engaging in various raunchy acts. Some photos were highly edited while others were extremely raw.
I think that art basicly has a one-sided relationship with reality. Reality is not art but art can use any element of what constitutes our reality for it's substance, whether that is the tradition of painting, advertising, history, pornography, you name it. A lot of people are very critical of this loss of historical frames of reference with which to judge art, i.e. the argument that art is over because it has become democratic. Jeff Koons can photograph Anal sex with his wife and expect it to be given the credibility that one would give to Les Demoiselles d'Avignon. In some cases it might be in the same building.
TANGENT (another)
What was the pornography of one era has now been absorbed into the museums as art. One might see a series of erotic prints, pornography at the time, housed in the same building as a Van Eyck painting. This attests to the idea that the meaning of an artwork is a collaboration between the artist and viewer or culture. Culture always has the last word. What was one a spoon natives used to eat with is now behind a piece of glass and on display.
pomo eats everything
ReplyDeleteSo say I'm--- don't laugh--- researching pornography and I find myself... intellectually aroused. Does said porn then transmogrificate into art?
ReplyDelete