The Difference Between Art and Pornography

Bill Henson nude on left. Censored pic by ABC on right

Pornography is not art. At the most basic level, people look at gratifying porn for a couple of minutes then go searching for more porn. The same is not true of gratifying art. People look at gratifying art for centuries and never grow tired of it. Art has an enduring quality that porn does not because art engages the mind, whereas porn engages sexual desire.

Aside from the enduring appeal, there are numerous other characteristics that differentiate art from porn. The difficulty in defining these characteristics have led to numerous legal disputes in the art and media worlds. One such dispute concerned the photographs of Bill Henson. 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 also showed its true feelings by failing to publish the images and/or censoring them when they did. In other words, the censorship indicated that most people considered the images to be 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 that 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 issues associated with sexual issues, the debate was particularly interesting to me. I don't agree that subjective gut instinct should be used to define porn. Some people get aroused by looking at feet and it would be silly if media companies had to start pixelating or blocking out feet to prevent sexual arousal in viewers. On the flip side, I don't necessary agree that identifying oneself as an artist is a get-out-jail free card, especially because many pornographers define themselves as artists. 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. Finally, even if art is not porn, it can still be socially destructive and harmful. In which case, artists should show some social resposibility.

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.  Even though I have reservations about the social value of Hensen's work, I don't believe Hensen's intention was to arouse therefore his work was not porn. Whether it was socially responsible was a different issue.

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, or be more reflective of their emotions, after viewing the painting. Even though it is revealing, I doubt any viewers would be provoked into mastubation after viewing it.

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 my painting to be arousing. Because emotion resides in colour, by striping colour from an image, I also also striped 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 are more likely to 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.  I would define such images as porn because the photographer was deliberately exploiting that taboo to evoke a sexual response.

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.

The main problem with my definition is that it proposes that art should provoke emotional and cognitive responses but not sexual responses. I’d argue this is already accepted. For example, in life drawing classes, there are a series of protocols designed to erode or restrain any kind of sexuality in the atmosphere. Firstly, the model is usually required to remain clothed until told to undress. Secondly, communication between model and artists is discouraged. Thirdly, in breaks the model is expected to put his or her clothes back on. Finally, it is not acceptable for the artists to remove their clothes and appear sexually excited. Despite the protocols, sexuality and eroticism are often still infused into the work; however, the raw sexuality is shaped by protocols of the social environment. As a result, the art is not has attained a level of complexity that porn does not. In other words, eroticism can exist in art but a work needs something more than just erotism to be art.

By infusing eroticism, but then constraining it with some kind of cognitive problem, such art can be engaged with for far longer periods of time than can porn. With art, a viewer can be engaged for years in wonderment, in tension, in confusion and in excitement.  With porn, the viewer may be engaged for a couple of minutes, have an orgasm and then go searching for something else. On the internet, this means that for every 1 search for art, there are perhaps 5,000 searches for porn. If you came to this page looking for porn (as analytics seem to show), but instead found yourself reading about art, perhaps there is a positive in that.