FA+
Shop
On the true definition of pornography
17 years ago
General
This is philosophical post by a liberal thinker. You have been warned. :3
Recently, I had a very long argument with someone on the definition of pornography. I won't go into too many details, but it got me thinking...
What defines pornography? Many people are taught in conservative homes, or in conservative schools, or in conservative places of worship, that pornography is anything that is prescribed as undecent by arbitrary standards of decency. Often in today's world, this means anything that is skimpy or has eroticism. As people grow up, they discover that at least some of this isn't so bad. And I've even heard friends make distinctions of "good porn" vs. "bad porn". But something about this has always set badly with me. You see, I've always believed there is no "good porn", but also that a lot of what many people might call "porn"...isn't porn. And I'll explain.
Me, I actually had a fairly liberal upbringing, and came to understand that the definition of pornography is more nuanced. So, out of curiosity, I checked the definition of 'pornography' at dictionary.com, and the definition at the top matched squarely with the definition I'd understood: "obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, esp. those having little or no artistic merit." Then I looked up 'obscene'. The entry at the top had three different definitions, and I realized that even this is a word whose meaning has multiple interpretations. The definition that fit my life's understanding best was #3: "abominable; disgusting; repulsive."
So, as I've understood it, pornography is necessarily obscene (repulsive), and usually of little or no artistic value. However, as a long-time art collector, I've come to believe that art is often what you make of it.
Me, I like art because something about it moves me. And not my pants - something deeper, something more thoughtful, something more nuanced. And even though many artworks may have been conceived with a specific intent, it is still up to the viewer to feel impressions of his own - that is part of what makes art so special.
There are lots of things I find absolutely repulsive. But there are also things I find truly beautiful, touching, inspiring. I am long past my childhood years when "all sex is bad" - we're human beings, get over it. But perhaps there were things I just didn't have the faculties to appreciate when I was a child, that I can appreciate better now that I am fully grown.
One of those things is "mature content". Now, there's the key word, "mature". It doesn't merely mean being of mature enough years to look at it. Lots of people witness mature content and are anything but mature in their reaction to it. Part of maturity is about having the sense of mind to think and react in deeper, more thoughtful, and more subtle ways than a child can. When you're a child, everything can hurt you, everything is off limits, everything is something you are protected against. When you're an adult, you (hopefully) have learned how to better make those decisions for yourself.
Now, consider the act of two mates making emotional love with one another. Is it a mature or adult situation? Hell, yes. But is it obscene? ...it's very touching, and...my gut just tells me no. Is it of artistic value? ...well, when lovers express their love and want to do it in the medium of art, it is difficult to imagine how they had no artistic intent. Since the presence of mind to consider it art was there, then the answer is emphatically yes. But that's not all there is to deciding whether or not something is artistic. An artwork can even be conceived with rather shallow motives, but there can be things about it that can still have a profound artistic effect on the viewer, who interprets art for himself.
And here is the (not so) revolutionary idea... Though many artworks may be mature or adult in nature, many things routinely called "porn"...are not porn at all. In the impartial sense, they can be porn if they were intended to forcefully throttle the senses and especially if they don't seem very artistic at all. But sweethearts making love...is not disgusting. So an artwork can erotic, and even have intimate and even very sexual situations in it. But it still might not be porn.
You see, the conservative ultra-broad prescribed definitions can be damaging to us as we grow up - they encourage knee-jerk generalizations and discourage deeper, nuanced free thinking. It isn't merely important to understand something to be a certain way because someone tells you it is. It is important to think, and reflect, and try to understand why something is the way it is, or whether it is at all.
Dictionaries demonstrate that words can have more than one meaning, and this is often not only because of context, but of accepted cultural meaning. And even in a socially liberal context, it is still possible for "pornography" to be considered a bad thing if it is understood to be something so inflamatory to the senses as to have no redeeming value. But cultures are different. And cultures also change. A lot of what was considered obscene 30 years ago...is not considered so today. And the reverse is also true - some things seem more obscene with time than they did previously.
And just as definitions can be flexible, the judgment of the practical uses of the word are also flexible. "Is that porn?" One person might say yes. Another person might say no. And in the contexts of their upbringing and understanding of the word and of how to apply the word, they could both be correct.
And this is what I think: There is no good porn. But not everything is porn. If an artwork is erotic (even if it has explicit sexual situations), but is inspiring and uplifting to the senses, then it is 'erotica', defined as "literature or art dealing with sexual love." And love can be a lot of things - anywhere from two mates, to even just good friends. I value a great deal of erotic art - it can be very beautiful and it can just as equally be unobscene in proper context. But I feel it is an insulting mischaracterization to call it 'porn', defining that which enflames ones senses. You see, I don't like porn, as it is something I consider that which is offensive (instead of beautiful) to my senses. It just strikes me as crude and uninspiring and unredeeming. Fortunately, not every intimate sexual act has to be porn.
When people call all erotic art "porn" and even distinguish "good porn" from "bad porn", they are diminishing the spirit of the word, and become desensitized to the reality that all true porn is bad. You will never hear me calling good erotic art "porn". And I am most offended when I feel genuinely pressured to abandon my nuanced deep-thinking distinctions of "erotica" and "porn" for the unthinking practice of calling all of it "porn". That's how a social conservative thinks, as they think it's all bad. But if something truly inspires you, then it's not all that bad, right? If what we mean is the "good porn", then no matter how erotic, we should more clearly be calling it "erotica".
There's an expression I've once heard. "No, porn is what you like. Erotica is what I like."
Here are some very good erotica artists here on FA, though there are certainly more than these. Whether what some of what they draw actually is porn is not my interest. But they draw plenty of very good art, much of which you can find in my FA favorites list.
Recently, I had a very long argument with someone on the definition of pornography. I won't go into too many details, but it got me thinking...
What defines pornography? Many people are taught in conservative homes, or in conservative schools, or in conservative places of worship, that pornography is anything that is prescribed as undecent by arbitrary standards of decency. Often in today's world, this means anything that is skimpy or has eroticism. As people grow up, they discover that at least some of this isn't so bad. And I've even heard friends make distinctions of "good porn" vs. "bad porn". But something about this has always set badly with me. You see, I've always believed there is no "good porn", but also that a lot of what many people might call "porn"...isn't porn. And I'll explain.
Me, I actually had a fairly liberal upbringing, and came to understand that the definition of pornography is more nuanced. So, out of curiosity, I checked the definition of 'pornography' at dictionary.com, and the definition at the top matched squarely with the definition I'd understood: "obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, esp. those having little or no artistic merit." Then I looked up 'obscene'. The entry at the top had three different definitions, and I realized that even this is a word whose meaning has multiple interpretations. The definition that fit my life's understanding best was #3: "abominable; disgusting; repulsive."
So, as I've understood it, pornography is necessarily obscene (repulsive), and usually of little or no artistic value. However, as a long-time art collector, I've come to believe that art is often what you make of it.
Me, I like art because something about it moves me. And not my pants - something deeper, something more thoughtful, something more nuanced. And even though many artworks may have been conceived with a specific intent, it is still up to the viewer to feel impressions of his own - that is part of what makes art so special.
There are lots of things I find absolutely repulsive. But there are also things I find truly beautiful, touching, inspiring. I am long past my childhood years when "all sex is bad" - we're human beings, get over it. But perhaps there were things I just didn't have the faculties to appreciate when I was a child, that I can appreciate better now that I am fully grown.
One of those things is "mature content". Now, there's the key word, "mature". It doesn't merely mean being of mature enough years to look at it. Lots of people witness mature content and are anything but mature in their reaction to it. Part of maturity is about having the sense of mind to think and react in deeper, more thoughtful, and more subtle ways than a child can. When you're a child, everything can hurt you, everything is off limits, everything is something you are protected against. When you're an adult, you (hopefully) have learned how to better make those decisions for yourself.
Now, consider the act of two mates making emotional love with one another. Is it a mature or adult situation? Hell, yes. But is it obscene? ...it's very touching, and...my gut just tells me no. Is it of artistic value? ...well, when lovers express their love and want to do it in the medium of art, it is difficult to imagine how they had no artistic intent. Since the presence of mind to consider it art was there, then the answer is emphatically yes. But that's not all there is to deciding whether or not something is artistic. An artwork can even be conceived with rather shallow motives, but there can be things about it that can still have a profound artistic effect on the viewer, who interprets art for himself.
And here is the (not so) revolutionary idea... Though many artworks may be mature or adult in nature, many things routinely called "porn"...are not porn at all. In the impartial sense, they can be porn if they were intended to forcefully throttle the senses and especially if they don't seem very artistic at all. But sweethearts making love...is not disgusting. So an artwork can erotic, and even have intimate and even very sexual situations in it. But it still might not be porn.
You see, the conservative ultra-broad prescribed definitions can be damaging to us as we grow up - they encourage knee-jerk generalizations and discourage deeper, nuanced free thinking. It isn't merely important to understand something to be a certain way because someone tells you it is. It is important to think, and reflect, and try to understand why something is the way it is, or whether it is at all.
Dictionaries demonstrate that words can have more than one meaning, and this is often not only because of context, but of accepted cultural meaning. And even in a socially liberal context, it is still possible for "pornography" to be considered a bad thing if it is understood to be something so inflamatory to the senses as to have no redeeming value. But cultures are different. And cultures also change. A lot of what was considered obscene 30 years ago...is not considered so today. And the reverse is also true - some things seem more obscene with time than they did previously.
And just as definitions can be flexible, the judgment of the practical uses of the word are also flexible. "Is that porn?" One person might say yes. Another person might say no. And in the contexts of their upbringing and understanding of the word and of how to apply the word, they could both be correct.
And this is what I think: There is no good porn. But not everything is porn. If an artwork is erotic (even if it has explicit sexual situations), but is inspiring and uplifting to the senses, then it is 'erotica', defined as "literature or art dealing with sexual love." And love can be a lot of things - anywhere from two mates, to even just good friends. I value a great deal of erotic art - it can be very beautiful and it can just as equally be unobscene in proper context. But I feel it is an insulting mischaracterization to call it 'porn', defining that which enflames ones senses. You see, I don't like porn, as it is something I consider that which is offensive (instead of beautiful) to my senses. It just strikes me as crude and uninspiring and unredeeming. Fortunately, not every intimate sexual act has to be porn.
When people call all erotic art "porn" and even distinguish "good porn" from "bad porn", they are diminishing the spirit of the word, and become desensitized to the reality that all true porn is bad. You will never hear me calling good erotic art "porn". And I am most offended when I feel genuinely pressured to abandon my nuanced deep-thinking distinctions of "erotica" and "porn" for the unthinking practice of calling all of it "porn". That's how a social conservative thinks, as they think it's all bad. But if something truly inspires you, then it's not all that bad, right? If what we mean is the "good porn", then no matter how erotic, we should more clearly be calling it "erotica".
There's an expression I've once heard. "No, porn is what you like. Erotica is what I like."
Here are some very good erotica artists here on FA, though there are certainly more than these. Whether what some of what they draw actually is porn is not my interest. But they draw plenty of very good art, much of which you can find in my FA favorites list.
Really and honestly, when I was going to college, I already knew the definition between "Erotica" and "Pornotica." (my terminology).
Considering my background (I went to the original "Woodstock" rock concert with my uncle and aunt!) and the fact that I came through the "hippie generation," and my art classes had nude models of both sexes: I'm very liberal. Sex to me was a beautiful thing, full of passion. That, my friend, is Erotica. And to me, that's beautiful.
But then there is an old slang phrase that defines Pornotica to me: "Slam, Bam, thank you M'aam." (or for gay guys, "Thank you, Sam.") To me, sex or sensuous art without thought or compassion is vulgar and crude. And yet there are a lot of situations I still don't understand. For example, like the "leather scene." To people who enjoy that, something that looks strange to me is not to them; They find beauty in whips and chains.
I explored all kinds of stuff in my 20's and 30's. I always looked at situations with an open mind. As you say, "in the contexts of their upbringing and understanding of the word."
Many people think my Morphs are pornographic. They are not. They are erotic and suggestive. And "covered." My mate's stuff shows male endowment, but again, I think it's done in good taste. And he formulated his moral views early in life, too. But as I get older and have "experience" behind me, I can resonate with a lot of what you say, because I, too, was solidifying my values while maturing.
"A lot of what was considered obscene 30 years ago...is not considered so today."
If you really want to see the difference, go look up a Victorian artist named "Aubrey Beardsley." I consider his works truly beautiful, but many would say it's just Porn.