The Difference Between Art and Pornography
 
Bill Henson nude on left. Censored pic by ABC on right
At the beginning of the 20th century, modernists such as Marcel Duchamp started putting things like urinals in galleries to make a point that everything was potentially art. As a result of Duchamp, and other artists following in his footsteps, the semantic boundaries of art became blurred. Ironically, this has caused huge problems for contemporary artist dealing with sexual issues. Without a clear definition of what art actually is, pornographers have become accepted as artists and artists have been seen as pornographers. Not only has this impacted upon the public image of their work, it has also led to them being charged with legal violations.
One such artist is Australian photographer Bill Hensen. In 2008, his exhibition was the subject of a police investigation after it emerged that it contained photos of naked children. The mass media subsequently debated whether it was art or porn; however, the media always showed its true feelings by failing to publish the images or censoring them when they did. In other words, the censorship indicated that the broad consensus was that the images were porn.
A similar dispute concerning art and pornography was seen in Britain in 2007. A photo of two children by Nan Goldin was seized because one of the children was naked. The anti-child pornography group CEOP, defended the police action by saying that gut instinct should determine whether it was pornography or not. In their own words,
"There are some images which just don't feel right. What is important is the lasting impression you get once you have viewed the image. If it leaves you with the lasting impression that what you are viewing is child abuse, then it probably is."
The view was countered by Mary Hayward of the Campaign Against Censorship, who said gut instinct was too subjective. Instead, Ms Hayward said what matters was where the picture was taken, where the picture was being exhibited, who took it, why they took it and all the circumstances around it.
As an artist that frequently explores with sexual issues, the debate was particularly interesting to me. I don't necessary agree that identifying oneself as an artist is a get-out-jail free card. There have been some dodgy artists, such as Roman Polanski and Donald Friend, that would have created some very unsavoury work had their artistic status allowed them to evade the laws of the countries they worked in. Nor do I think that displaying something in a gallery means something is art. I appreciate that Duchamp convinced his audience that a gallery could convert a urinal into a work of art, but I like to think that if an object can't live on as art when removed from the gallery, then it probably isn’t art at all.
The point that I do agree with is why the art was created should be considered when determining whether it is porn. In short, if the motivation to create is to provoke a sexual response and nothing else, then it is porn. If the motivation is to provoke a cognitive response, then it is art. The art itself should reveal the motivations of the creator.
Man Coerces a Woman to have Sex Using Reasons Other than Her Own Desire - Chad Swanson
My painting, Man Coerces a Woman to have Sex Using Reasons Other than Her Own Desire, is a good example of a sexually explicit painting that was not painted to provoke a sexual response. It depicts a primeval and raw emotional state of man that is beyond consideration to the woman, and a woman whose emotions are disconnected from the physical coupling that is occurring. Although the painting could be seen as a representation of a typical scene in an x-rated movie, I doubt many viewers would be sexually aroused by viewing it.
The painting represents an emotional dynamic in a cognitive way in order to induce an intellectual reflection upon it. Such a cognitive reflection destroys the base emotions necessary to trigger sexual excitement, and so allows a scene to be reflected upon in an intellectual way. I would hope that male viewers would be more considerate to women after viewing the painting, not be provoked into mastubation.
Two Hands - Chad Swanson
I created Two Hands in order to explore why black and white photos of women are often considered art, while coloured photos are considered porn. The painting was derived from a pornographic picture in Penthouse magazine. Despite being very explicit, I don't believe many people would find it arousing. Because emotion resides in colour, if you strip colour from an image, you also strip emotion. Instead of getting an emotional response, which could lead to a sexual response, a black and white image is likely to result in viewers focussing on lines, curves and shapes. In other words, the viewers will access it on a non-sexual level. Admittedly, for decades there was a pornography genre that was based on black and white photos of women showing their calves or perhaps a revealing neckline. In these examples; however, I think the sexual excitement stemmed from viewing a taboo image rather than the eroticism of the image themselves. In other words, the viewer was excited by doing something wrong.
Katsushika Hokusai, "The Adonis Plant (Fukujusô)" Woodblock
Sexually explicit woodblocks from Japan's Edo period also provide some food for thought on the differences between art and porn. Almost all artists in the period made explicit woodblocks and there was no shame associated with them. Although the lack of shame may have indicated a different attitude to sex in Edo-period Japanese society, it may have also indicated that the prints were not viewed in sexualised ways. Many of the prints tried to show sexual possibilities and in that regard, perhaps they acted like a training manual similar to the Karma Sutra. In other words, their intention was to instruct, not to induce masturbation. Consequently, they were not porn.
|
