subject: It's an age-old question. When is art art and when is it simply pornography? [print this page] A great deal of classic works of art contain nudity (and occasionally, sex acts). For this reason, legally a work of art is not considered pornographic under obscenity laws. However, what constitutes "artistic merit" is left somewhat vague because who is in a position to make a judgement between black and white - right or wrong?
What is sublime to one person can be smut to another, and erotic art does nothing if not tease out the difference between stimulating the mind and arousing the senses.
What I find entertaining is observing the viewers of the world's most sensuous images, as they arrange their faces into expressions of scholarly interest. The relationship between viewer and image is part of the point, and erotic artist try to tap the voyeur in us all. Let's face we are all abit curious aren't we.
The division of objects on moral, as opposed to scholarly, grounds can be traced to the late 18th century and it changed forever our view of classical civilisation. In other words our morality levels adapted to different situations.
By 1864, when "pornography" was first defined in a dictionary, it was as "licentious painting employed to decorate the walls of rooms sacred to Bacchanalian orgies, examples of which exist in Pompeii". You what? - I hear you cry!
When I have visited exhibitions containing erotic art it's not about porn. It's a celebration of what connects all human beings across time and cultures. Normally its about what's accepted as art and to throw light on our current attitudes or even to see how far those attitudes can be pushed.
And certainly those attitudes have changed. Think about the cast of the bronze fig leaf which was made so that Queen Victoria would not be offended by the replica of Michelangelo's statue of David in London's Victoria and Albert Museum and then consider Japanese works that are very explicit. But they are sumptuous, beautiful, delicate and refined.
What about pottery showing the antics of Greek and Roman gods and goddesses, through the voluptuous bodies of the Renaissance to contemporary works such as the stylised satirical photographs by Jeff Koons poking fun at the porn industry.
How similar we are in terms of images of sex and joy, but also about the unease in the representation of this private act. And every civilisation has had problems with it. Styles of art have changed over the centuries, while human beings and their desires have essentially stayed the same.
Certainly when a work is old it appears to us as more acceptable as art rather than pornography and art is more complicated than porn, arousing a mixture of emotions. The other big difference is the quality. If you look at the frescoes from Herculaneum, they employed major artists. If you went to a brothel or strip club today, you don't expect major artists to be deployed.
I shall not attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced as hard-core pornography and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it... It's got lots of naked women in suggestive poses. But it's thoroughly artistic I swear! Therefore it can't be considered pornography, and it doesn't matter that it's hidden under my bed. Or perhaps the fault is in the viewer, who has a dirty mind.
To me works which contains erotica is fine but anything which suggests violence or sex with children should be banned and burnt.
It's an age-old question. When is art art and when is it simply pornography?
