I wrote an essay questioning pornography as art. Similarly, female pornography producer Erika Lust argues that pornography is art in a Dazed article Why you should watch porn through the female gaze which combats an attitude that deviates sexuality in action.
Banner: Nymphomaniac, Magnolia Pictures, 2013
What Is Art Is Stimulation
Pornography is art because it inspires artistic change. The Appreciation Argument regarding pornography versus art is as follows. One must appreciate art by viewing it in an artistic interest. To appreciate something as pornography, one must appreciate it with pornographic interest. One cannot appreciate one work in two distinct appreciations; therefore it is not possible to appreciate something as pornographic art, but rather distinctly as pornography, or art respectively (Parsons, 2015).
Philosopher Jerrold Levinson defends this argument with the Improved Appreciation Argument: To appreciate something, true art requires simultaneous focus on the work’s form and content. Further, to appreciate something as pornography, one must disregard artistic form and strictly observe the sexual content (Parsons, 2015). For Levinson, these two forms of appreciation are not compatible. The first artistic appreciation is opaque in that one comprehends the art and its beauty, and artistic interest is satisfied. The latter appreciation for pornography is transparent, because the object of the work displays exactly what the aim is: blatant sexual arousal that is to lead to a climax. For Levinson, it is impossible to appreciate something as pornographic art. Opaque is to form as it is to art; as transparency is to content as it is to image. This is the viewpoint of Levinson.
Philosopher Matthew Kieran criticizes the Appreciation Argument, as he believes that pornography indeed can be considered art. Kieran defends pornography as art, subject to the perspective of the observer. If the observer takes artistic interest in the actors as real people, then the pornography is art. If the observer perceives the actors as objects or bodies in the act of sex, then the pornography is no longer art, but a means to an end. I believe Kieran’s argument is correct, that pornography can be art. In this essay, I will explain why pornography as art can be both transparent and opaque to the observer in contrast to what Levinson believes. I will extrapolate how pornography can also communicate the actors as a subject through their form to a story as Kieran stated, but also how their act simultaneously is used as an object to reach climax, wherein form nor formula is not dependent to make art. Pornography can remain physically accurate and exaggerated as an art for arousal.
Despite Kieran’s view on pornography as art if the observer sees the actors as subjects and not objects, one is inclined to consider the final destination to be drawn from pornography: overall sexual release. Sexual climax of the observer through mental reaction via stimulation and arousal is an alteration of the mind. As mind manipulation is considered an art among hypnotizers and meditation, that which inspires the stimulation must also be an art, and so the arousal stimulated by pornography is therefore art.
Beyond Kieran’s distinction of an object (pornography) and subject (pornography as art), I believe that pornography is an art in any form, as the arousal from pornography is directly related to the pleasure of physical climax. Pornography stimulates the mind and the brain - whether it is observed through any of the five senses- to the same plane as an arousing work of art. Kieran argues that pornography is not art when it has no story behind the act, and the subjects become objects. However the observer of the pornography transfers the lack of storyline not provided and applies the scenario to their own life, in their own imagination. In this argument of transparency between observer and art, pornography inspires creativity and a story in the aroused observer’s mind. Therefore pornography is art, and an art itself. In this view of transparency between observer and pornography, Levinson gains the upper hand that pornography is art, as the observer is transparently engaged with the form. This engagement between the image and the observer is an art, and the connection between the art and the observer appreciates pornography as art.
To inspire imagination through transparency or connectedness to the subject is to manipulate the mind beyond the image. The mind is open to its own imagination if there is nothing left to observe from the pornographic subject. This can be applied to erotic art. Although I will not be specifically addressing pornography versus erotica and erotic art, I will use an example of an erotic piece of art to explain how the erotic art is translated to pornographic art, because of the arousal it inspires.
In one particular erotic sketch by Klimt, the female subject is beyond physical awareness as she is engaged in a sexual act with another human. She closes her eyes as she is sprawled under the legs and engulfed under a figure she holds. Her expression shows her within and without her mind and body, as she is likely uplifted by her mind’s transformation from sexual intercourse. The transparency, and opaqueness of the act depicted by Klimt interacts with the observer, whose mind is manipulated to comparable sexual stimulation of the couple in the subject. Yet the observer does not visually know the full characters or their story, making them opaque according to Levinson.
However, Klimt’s translation of the act to the viewer makes the sketch transparent. The artist would have observed the pornography in action, and gathered the visual information portrayed. His transparency of the pornographic art is still visually communicated to the observer today. Thus in a way the sketch carries the air of pornography, even though it is a work of art according to Levinson, because it was pornography first. Levinson’s ideas of opaqueness in art, and transparency in pornography, should not be organized as either art or pornography as he declares them to be. The latter can encompass either as expressed in the above-mentioned piece by Klimt. Pornography is therefore art through the transparent and opaque transformation of the mind to further levels of arousal, regardless of second or first hand visual information.
The lack of physical form or dimension in pornography is what departs pornography from art, according to Levinson (236). On the other hand, Kieran discusses the thin formulas of pornography as unnecessary to the stimulation, as they can still be artistically manipulated by the mind of the observer (39). The lack of form in pornography is not a crutch for pornography as art, but a tool that makes pornography art via the observer. In defiance of Levinson’s argument, one may consider the art of sound. A single note does not have form but is transparent. However the alteration of mind through the interpretation of a single note - whether it is a sharp or flat note - can cause happiness, melancholy, and even arousal through mind stimulation. Layered notes (called music) are formulaic and can inspire art. Even a single sound itself is still art, despite a lack of form (Levinson) because of how it massages the mind to another level beyond awareness.
Sexual climax is a realm beyond physical awareness. Although Klimt’s sketch mentioned beforehand does have artistic form, Levinson’s argument that the lack of form in pornography is what separates pornography from art is incorrect; form is not necessary to create art. Pornography can alter the mind to another level of awareness through sexual inspiration, or arousal. In this way, the alteration of mind is the art provided by pornography and therefore in any form or lack thereof, pornography is art.
Consider Kieran’s example of the rise of pulp fiction as an example of how pornography was, is, and becomes art. Pulp fiction became popular as an art as the popularity grew; it did not start out with artistic merit (Kieran 33). However anyone regarding original pulp fictions today would consider them early forms of the art. Sexual expressions humanity could not keep away from art on exaggerated cave paintings, and this kept fire throughout time. Pornography became an intrinsic tool to spruce sexuality in humans and became art.
For example, as the popularity of film began in the 19th and 20th centuries, the debut of pornography in film became sex and art. One such example of heterosexual pornography from 1945 is the film “Mom and Dad”, directed by William Beaudine. In it, the woman who gives birth is shot explicitly showing her genitals open as the baby emerges. The National League of Decency argued the film against its screenings, yet it was still shown (Dolphin, n.p.). This example of pornography in film as art is how some mediums of art contain pornography, yet remains art, and therefore pornography is art.
Pornography is art as it engulfs the outer worldly transformation it represents, whether or not the passion is transparent or opaque to the observer. Art is a stretch of imagination that combines technical approaches, such as blatant portrayals of sex acts with intent to sexually aggravate. Art is exaggeration, and pornography is an exaggeration of sex and sexual organs to induce stimulation of the mind and physical body. One may consider that the way pornography may simultaneously be called art, and not art is when it uniquely emulates both human needs (reproduction) and human desires (sex).
In this way I do not concur in Kieran’s belief that the expressive possibilities of sex through pornography cannot be artistic when they are physically and biologically accurate (34). Accuracy is not disconnected from pornography, or from art. There can be a combination of exaggeration and accuracy in art, just as the birth scene in “Mom and Dad” depicted. Art is a stretch of imagination that combines technical approaches with extended emotion from the subject- art is exaggeration, and pornography is an exaggeration of sex to induce stimulation of the mind and physical body.
Therefore pornography is art. It can be transparent and opaque from the artist to the observer at the same time. The pornographic actors are both subject and object that induce sexual release. The form and formulas in art and pornography do not matter — one can create their own relatable sexual formula whether or not a form is present in the artwork. Pornography can also be physically accurate whilst exaggerated to arouse the observer. As I do believe pornography is art, titles create deviants and induce discrimination, and so pornography as an art is subjective. Neither art nor sexually explicit art can be labeled as pornography or art, and so what is art is stimulation that belongs in the reaction of the viewer.
Works Cited
Dolphin, P.W. “Those Who Came Before: The 10 Most Important Erotica Pioneers.” Paper. Paper Magazine, 19 Nov. 2015: Web. 19 November 2015.
Kieran, Matthew. “Pornographic Art.” Philosophy and Literature 25.1 (2001): 31-45. Web. 21 Nov. 2015.
Levinson, Jerrold. “Erotic Art and Pornographic Pictures.” Philosophy and Literature 29.1 (2005): 228-240. Web. 21 Nov. 2015.
Parsons, Glenn. “Kieran’s View: Pornography Can Be Art (Though Most Of It Isn’t).” Ryerson University. Ted Rogers School of Management, Toronto, Ontario. 20 November 2015. Lecture.