The difference between art and pornography is a discussion that is likely to continue indefinitely, at least so long as it is meaningful to distinguish between them (and this will continue so long as porn is discriminated against). I think there are two main reasons for this. First, "art" and "pornography" are both labels with very vague definitions. People have argued what qualifies as "art" and what qualifies as "pornography" separately for a long time. What does it mean to be art? At what point does something become pornographic? The other reason for the continued discussion is that there is an overlap between art and pornography, yet they are not equivalent - think of it as a Venn diagram. There is some art that can be considered pornographic, and there is some pornography that can be considered artistic, but there will always be examples of art that is clearly not pornography, and pornography that is clearly not art. And to complicate things further, the placement of the circles in the Venn diagram depends on one's definitions of art and pornography, which, vague as they are, is something we as a collective haven't been able to agree on.
Nevertheless, as an erotic artist who sees what I do as being qualitatively different from pornography, I often consider ways that I might explain how my work is separate from porn, even if it may sometimes be considered pornographic. When we talk about the issue directly, there are all sorts of assumptions involved, as well as the value judgments we make about sexuality and anything dealing with it. So let's, for a moment, transfer the issue to something benign - rather than pictures of nudity, let us consider pictures of cats.
There are two very different approaches to taking pictures of cats (or anything else). And which one you use has a lot to do with your intent as the photographer. Are you taking pictures of cats because you think cats are beautiful and you want to share that beauty with the world? Or are you taking pictures of cats simply because you like cats, you like looking at cats, you know that other people like looking at cats, and you want to take lots of pictures for other people to look at? I'm not saying the difference in these approaches isn't subtle, as there are a lot of similarities, but the result - the pictures that are taken and shared - often reveal a fundamental difference of intent.
To play on the comparison further, I will refer to "cats" as pussies from here on out. You can imagine that there are a lot of people out there who love pussies and get a lot of enjoyment out of looking at other people's pussies. They aren't particularly concerned about the artistic quality of these pictures - obviously, they'll like prettier pictures more, but they like the bad ones too because what they're really in it for isn't the aesthetic quality of the pictures but simply the opportunity to look at pussies. Lots of 'em.
Now imagine an artist who recognizes a quality of beauty inherent to pussies, and wants to emphasize that quality in his photographs, and share it with others. He takes lots of pictures of pussies, but he doesn't share them all, because they're not all particularly good pictures. His intent isn't merely to take pictures of pussies, but to take good pictures of pussies. And so he puts in effort to take better pictures, and he is less enthusiastic about sharing the bad pictures than our previous pussy photographer - because for him, it's not just about looking at pussies and sharing them with people, it's about capturing an aesthetic beauty, elusive and captivating, and sharing that with people. That's the art. It's that ineffable quality one is chasing.
And I'll reiterate that this is just an example to get the concept across. It would be far too simplistic to say that the difference between art and pornography is merely the quality of the images, and it would be pretentious for me to say that an artist perceives something ethereal where the pornographer sees just flesh. Although both of these things may be true on some level. I'm not trying to draw up stereotypes - because I don't think you should use them - and I still maintain that an artist can be a pornographer and that a pornographer can be an artist. But hopefully this example will give you some idea of what it means to create porn versus what it means to create art.
I'd say it's somewhat disturbing that art and pornography are segregated in the first place. The difference between art and trash can never, ever be universalized. Imagine if you had to be 18 years old to listen to gritty, low-brow rock n roll but classical music was allowed for everyone. If television and music were to be subjected to as rigorous a judgement call, I've no doubt that most of my favorite stuff would be taken away from me and put behind the counter. I like things with low production values and simplistic modes... often much more so than those of high values.
ReplyDeleteI mean how do you explain that the amateurish naivete' itself is what makes a TV show or song art and not just an amateurish naive piece of work? We can go to the artist and say: Are you a skilled artist who has intentionally crafted a naive work? Or are you just naive? But then, is genuine naivete not of equal or even greater worth than contrived naivete? The thing is, for me much of what I enjoy about art isn't coming from the artist at all. i.e. Trying to figure out whether Miranda Cosgrove is practicing self-awareness or is just clueless is what makes her tweets an "ingenious" piece of work for me.
Granted... the idea of porn is to get off. This is a distinction that does not exist between rock n roll and classical... unless you want to get abstract. I can't imagine putting on a hardcore pornography for background viewing just because it's a quality piece of work... even in cases of such things that I consider to be genuinely great pices of pornography. But I'd like to imagine the reason for this is the culture surrounding pornography. If more craft were put into it, more dialogue, maybe it would be good enough to put on without sexual intentions. Imagine a sex scene with a deep meaning that conveys a message. But then, would that material have crossed the boundary and become art? And the perennial question remains about works of art which people masturbate to. Hell, there are incredible photos of fully clothed people which are better than porn. So even though masturbation is the crucial difference which makes the pornography debate relevant compared to similiar subjective hierarchies in other forms of art, it's almost as if we can't even use it as a benchmark...
But outliers aside, the distinction is still there. Even if "Kate goes dogging" (real thing) were to retain artistic merit, it is pronography. And even if "Katie Mac at the Prom" (doesn't exist) gets my rocks off, a pic of a perfectly average prom photo is not pornography. Not necessarily art either but it's not pornography.
In the end, as you've said, the tragedy is the demonizing of pornography in our culture. The difference between what is art and what is pornography is what we feel when we look at one and the other, case closed. Pornography turns you on and art moves you, to oversimplify it. The same could be said about any number of music genre distinctions, it's all completely subjective. But porn v art holds more weight solely because we've decided that one is bad and the other is good. It's like the whole world has been turned into music purists, demonizing all those who listen to one style over another.