Behind the Digital LensMusings of an Amateur Photographer

16th Aug, 2011 Is It Art, or Is It Pornography?*

art: (noun)

·         the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.

pornography: (noun)

·         obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, especially those having little or no artistic merit.

obscene: (adjective)

·         offensive to morality or decency; indecent; depraved: obscene language.

·         causing uncontrolled sexual desire.

·         abominable; disgusting; repulsive

I find it rather interesting that here in the United States of America for our First Amendment Constitutional rights to freedom of speech pornography is still undefined and has been debated for years, so for the most part we try to categorize pornography into decency or indecency; for the biggest part whether something is seen as pornographic or not is determined by an individual[s] upbringing and religious views, which can be conflicting within an individual.  For example, Michelangelo’s David presents us with full frontal male nudity, yet a photo of a woman posing nude with full frontal nudity is more than likely to be considered pornographic, risqué, or possibly sexually erotic.  Early Victorian nude photographs [almost always of women] from Europe, most notably France, tend to be classified as erotic for the times, especially if there is a clothed male involved, or two nude women, but not pornographic.  Today, we see these classic images are more in line with art than pornography, but in the time between 1890 and 1930 these were considered racy and not to be viewed in mixed company, although people of class may have regarded these in “good taste”.  In museums of art we see Renaissance nudes, again, mostly full bodied voluptuous women, and even when viewing the Sistine Chapel with Biblical images depicted in the nude, we see nothing pornographic or erotic in nature as there is nothing implicitly suggestive in the painting.  Obviously there is a difference between art [paintings, drawings, sculpture] or photography that is made to elicit a sexual response and gratification, but these usually depict sexual acts, legal or illegal. 

So, where is the line drawn?  Is it drawn in the eye of the beholder or is it drawn in the subject and object of intent by the creator?  Does a photo of a person nude stop being art when a second person is involved?  Or does it become pornographic when eroticism is implied?  Would a photograph of two individuals in a loving embrace be considered pornographic/risqué/erotic if they were naked, or would it be considered art if the same two people were casually dressed in the same embrace?

We all see art from different points of view based on our upbringing, knowledge and understanding, and religious teachings.  Consequently, our definition of art vs. pornography will be a personal one.  As individuals, we are the ones to decide what we find in artistic taste as opposed to what we consider pornographic.  And as artists, whether as a painter/drawer, sculptor, photographer, or other media artist, our decision on style is based on the emotion we intend to convey to the viewer, but is not always based on how the viewer may ultimately interpret what we present.

*The views expressed above are solely mine and meant only as consideration for thought.   I declare no right or wrong in the above discussion; this is left to the reader to decide for themselves.  This discussion is based on the classic artistic mediums, and not on the written, auditory, or video-graphical mediums.