Porn - Philosophy for Everyone: How to Think With Kink (25 page)

So, can pornographic works have artistic value? Yes, an object could satisfy both an artistic interest and a pornographic interest. But is it ever the case that one artistically values a work
by virtue of
one’s taking a pornographic interest in that work? No, because an artistic interest requires one to take an interest in the formal qualities of the work, and a pornographic interest ignores these qualities in order to attend to the content of the work solely.
¹⁷

NOTES

1
See, for instance, Jerrold Levinson, “Erotic Art,” in Edward Craig (ed.)
The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy
(New York: Routledge, 1999), pp. 406–9, and “Erotic Art and Pornographic Pictures,”
Philosophy and Literature
29, 1 (2005): 228–40; Joel Feinberg,
Offense to Others
(New York: Oxford University Press, 1985); and George Steiner, “Night Words: High Pornography and Human Privacy,” in Douglas Hughes (ed.)
Perspectives on Pornography
(New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1970), pp. 96–108.

2
Specifically, I have in mind Matthew Kieran, “Pornographic Art,”
Philosophy and Literature
25 (2001): 31–45. See also Levinson, “Erotic Art and Pornographic Pictures,” for his response to Kieran’s argument.

3
An example that springs to mind is Damien Hirst’s sculpture
For the Love of God
, produced in 2007, which is a platinum cast of a human skull encrusted with 8,601 diamonds.This sculpture may be worth quite a lot of money today, but this alone does not make it artistically valuable or even historically important. Personally, I like much of Hirst’s work; however, I wonder whether
For the Love of God
will really stand the test of time.

4
See, for instance, Steiner, “Night Words.”

5
By “pure music” here I simply mean music that has no lyrics – instrumental music. Certainly, some pure music might be associated with pornography, but this association does not make the music pornographic. For pure music to be pornographic I would think that the music itself would need to be sexually arousing.Whether this is possible or not may really be an empirical question.

6
See, for instance, Mary Devereaux, “Beauty and Evil: Leni Riefenstahl’s
Triumph of the Will
” and Berys Gaut, “The Ethical Criticism of Art,” both in Jerrold Levinson (ed.)
Aesthetics and Ethics
(New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998).

7
I am unaware of any philosophers who have directly discussed the moral problems associated with Gibson’s piece, but Thomas Heyd offers an interesting discussion of this work with regard to the artistic status of performance art in an essay titled “Understanding Performance Art: Art Beyond Art,”
British Journal of Aesthetics
31 (2001): 68–73.

8
A more plausible suggestion in my view is that the immorality of Gibson’s piece necessarily renders his work
artistically
flawed.This is a claim that would be supported by Gaut’s theory of ethicism in “The Ethical Criticism of Art.” While I think this claim has some plausibility, I also have my worries.Would we think the same about pornography? If some pornography is immoral, then is that pornography necessarily artistically flawed? I hesitate to accept this because, as the argument of my essay shows, an object can serve many interests for a consumer. Moral interests and artistic interests seem to me distinct kinds of interests, as are pornographic interests and artistic interests. However, my hesitation is due to the observation that one’s aesthetic response sometimes is dependent upon one’s moral sensibilities. Think of dirty jokes: to appreciate their humor, it seems that one must recognize that the joke is dirty – that is, one must be aware of the ethical implications of the joke in order to appreciate its risqué humor.This suggests that moral sensibilities sometimes do play a role in our aesthetic responses. Unfortunately, I do not have the space to pursue this thought here and must leave it aside.

9
Steiner, “Night Words,” argues that pornography is necessarily repetitive because the pornographic imagination is limited to what one finds sexually pleasurable, which he thinks must be rather limited. As he says, “In most erotic writing, as in man’s wet dreams, the imagination turns, time and time again, inside the bounded circle of what the body can experience. The actions of the mind when we masturbate are not a dance; they are a treadmill” (101). See also Feinberg,
Offense to Others
, ch. 11.

10
Michael Rea, “What is Pornography?”
Nous
35 (2001): 118–45. Rea makes a similar point regarding the category
work of art
in his essay “Constitution and Kind Membership,”
Philosophical Studies
97 (2000): 169–93.While I am tempted to agree with this too, I also think that the category
work of art
is relevant to evaluation and appreciation in a way that the category
pornography
is not.The category
work of art
is useful to evaluation even if this is not a genuine ontological kind.

11
I say “normally” here in order to avoid cases where defeating conditions arise – like being impotent, or being otherwise distracted, or whatever. We should of course also recognize that what is “normal” about one’s sexual arousal will differ from person to person.

12
Levinson, “Erotic Art and Pornographic Pictures,” p. 232.

13
For the idea of photographic “transparency,” See Kendall Walton, “Transparent Pictures: On the Nature of Photographic Realism,”
Critical Inquiry
11 (1984): 246–77. For discussion of the “transparency thesis” and the aesthetic value of photography, see Roger Scruton,“Photography and Representation,”
Aesthetic Understanding
(London: Methuen, 1983) and Dominic Lopes,“The Aesthetics of Photographic Transparency,”
Mind
112 (2003): 433–48.

14
It is worth noting that Levinson regards photography as “the prime medium for pornography, that which has displaced all other such media in that connection. For photography is the transparent medium
par excellence
, that is, the medium that comes closest to simply presenting the requisite object – typically, a woman or a man or combinations thereof – directly, as material for sexual fantasy and gratification” (“Erotic Art and Pornographic Pictures,” p. 232).To my knowledge, Levinson has not commented on the idea of pornographic literature.

15
Again, it is for this reason that I do not think of
pornography
as a substantial ontological category.

16
Thanks to Dave Monroe for this phrase.

17
My thanks go to Jennifer Courtney-Bartel and Dave Monroe for the many helpful suggestions that they each made on earlier versions of this essay.

LAWRENCE HOWE

CHAPTER 13

AN UNHOLY TRINITY
The Beautiful, the Romantic, and the Vulgar

This study examines the differences between fine art, erotica, and pornography in the visual arts. Of paramount importance is the issue of drawing parameters that would allow one to recognize the difference between erotic presentations from pornographic presentations. Furthermore, and as a compliment to aforesaid distinction, I want to address the aesthetic attitude and the role it may play in estimates of pornography. Ultimately, the focus will be to underscore the central place of aesthetic distance for declaring a work as erotic or pornographic.

Erotica and Pornography: From the Romantic to the Vulgar

We use the word “erotica” to refer to any phenomenon that provokes sexual desires relating to sexual love. In this regard I raise two questions. First, in what way is erotica distinct from pornography? And secondly, does erotic art meet the criteria required for fine art? The second question, to be discussed later, relates to the conditions needed for the development of the aesthetic attitude of the observer as a prerequisite for aesthetic experience. I intend to examine whether or not the works of visual art falling under the category of erotica satisfy the demands of fine art insofar as fine art enables the viewer to have a disinterested interest in the art object; simply put, that means having an interest solely in the contemplation of the object free from any other interests or motives one might have.

In such instances the viewer has intrinsic interest in the art object for its own sake. So when asking if erotic art meets the standards of evaluating a work as fine art, and the answer is no, then I maintain there are problems characterizing erotica as fine art. But if the answer is yes then erotic art may well indeed come within the domain of fine art.

These issues are not unrelated to visual presentations of pornography. Just the same, the promiscuously public men and women of the world appear to be confused over the difference between erotica and pornography. In practice these forms of production are often confused, perhaps because of the overlapping sexual content in both kinds of presentations. I believe this confusion is due more to a focus on moral issues, with little or no interest regarding aesthetic considerations about fine art as distinct from related visual presentations.

Historically, the term “pornography” has been used to refer to the activities of prostitutes, including the various media (pictures and literature) that are meant to arouse sexual feelings and desires.Thus, the definitions of erotica and pornography are similar in that both relate to the stimulation of sexual desires. Nevertheless, there is at least one outstanding difference that we can take as a point of departure for this essay.The products of erotica are related to romantic love whereas pornographic works exclude love, romantic or otherwise, in the effort to arouse the basest forms of lust by the sexual activities of would-be porn stars.
¹

I would now like to focus on how one might go about drawing a sharper division between erotica and pornography.Theses remarks are restricted to visual presentations as examples of either erotica or pornography. While the common use of the word “erotica” may be a point of departure for this inquiry, it does nothing to unpack basic differences between it and pornography.

My view asserts a fundamental difference between erotica and pornography. Erotica may share aesthetic qualities possessed by works of fine art but not pornography. I suggest that the ideal of what ought to be considered erotica as something much different from the rules constituting pornography. Undoubtedly, I will admit that in practice there will be instances where the division between the two is not as obvious as I recommend, and the same might be said for the differences between erotica and fine art.

We may start by highlighting the salient features of erotica. Erotica encourages the
provocation
of sexual love.To say that erotica is provocative means that the object is capable of
inciting
some emotion in the viewer as it is drawn toward the object: the viewer’s emotion is aroused to the level of excitement. In no way is he or she detached from the experience of the object. This follows Arthur Berndtson’s insight that in the erotic aspect of art,“eros begins with the pleasure of admiration, which here is directed toward the sexual being of another: the pleasure contracts into desire for union with that being; the desire represents itself as moving toward a dark ecstasy, a passage beyond clear areas of the self, pleasure, and consciousness.”
²
In Berndtson’s expressionists aesthetic, the attentive audience is stimulated in a particular way that involves,
inter alia
, the “desire for union with that being.” Clearly, the appeal of erotica in the visual arts is not the same as that of pornography. Erotica stimulates
affection
for the erotic object. In most cases the object depicted is a person or persons, though it may be a non-human object as well, or the person(s) depicted may be involved with erotic objects. By saying erotica stimulates affection we are bringing attention to the
empathetic relation
the artist evokes between the aesthetic perceiver and the erotic depiction. Additionally, the arousal of sexual desire is not one of an autoerotic kind; the perceiver is not self-absorbed by his or her own sexuality, but is in fact interested in the object for its own expression of aesthetic qualities of grace, harmony, and balance. The erotic presentation
reveals its sexual character through aesthetic qualities
. The affection has an aesthetic quality due to the attention of the perceiver to enjoy a degree of disinterest in the art object; thus his or her concern is not vulgar sexual lust. Again, there is a residue of
detachment
between the aroused observer and the expression provided by the erotic object, thus some aesthetic distance is sustained by the perceiver and the object. The affection is not purely sexual simply because part of the reason for the attraction to the erotic object is its success in expressing aesthetic qualities of the object. For example, the aesthetic qualities are prefigured in the artist’s intention to express the emotion embodied in the object engaged by the aesthetic perceiver.The aesthetic features of balance, grace, unity in diversity and harmony are generated by the artist and her technique to impress the observer with beauty expressed in an
ambient sexual milieu
.The permeation of sexuality within the work is secondary to the artistic expression of the object.

Given these remarks about erotica and its relation to sexual arousal we are now in a position to sharpen the contrast to pornography. I suggest that there are several key differences between the two. Starting again with the common uses of the terms cited above, erotica involves erotic love as an integrated feature of sexuality, but the same cannot be said for pornography. Pornography tends to emphasize pure sexuality in the raw, so to speak; it appeals is to the common and vulgar nature of humanity. The view I hold is opposed to that held by Feinberg. He writes:

A painting of a copulating couple that satisfied the relevant standards for good painting would
ipso facto
be a work of pictorial art; it might be done in exquisitely harmonizing color, with properly balanced composition, subtlety of line, successful lighting effects, and depicted figures of memorably graceful posture and facial expressiveness. Such a painting might also be designed to stimulate the genitals of the observer. Insofar as it also achieved that goal it would be a work of pornography.
³

In contrast to this passage, one could argue that when we take into account the aesthetic observer it may not be the case that the work can be fine art and pornographic at the same time.This is because Feinberg’s appeal to genital arousal prevents the observer from having a disinterested interest in the object for its own intrinsic worth. His example may, in principle, be an instance of fine art or pornography, but not both. If it is a case of fine art then it holds the potential to be viewed with disinterest, but pornography, not bearing aesthetic properties, forfeits the opportunity for aesthetic contemplation.The above passage highlights the aim of the artist at the expense of the disposition held by selective attention of the observer.

Let us take into account another consideration. Consider pornography being more closely related to fetishism than it is to erotica. The fetish/ pornography connection may help clear up the misunderstanding, and thus the conflation, of erotica with pornography. First, note that fetishism has a sordid history largely because of religious disapproval of using
non-natural
means to achieve sexual gratification. Fetishism does imply the deliberate use of some artificial means to stimulate sexual desire. There are too many fetish objects and the playing out of fetish roles for me to list. Among fetish objects would be shoes, boots, masks, costumes, feathers, whips, and chains, not to mention an assortment of foods, lubricants, aphrodisiacs, etc. Porn movies, magazines, and other visual material often, though not always, use these props as a means to do the same things as Viagra does, namely, excite the genital organs in the quest for carnal pleasure. Whether or not the porn artisan employs fetish objects, the goal is the arousal of heightened sensuality. Pornography serves a utilitarian role, thus the product serves as a means to the pleasure of the customer. The sexual stimulus plan for pornography need not involve any residue of loving affection, erotic or otherwise. Certainly, an art object can be pornographic without the use of fetish objects or role playing that is also part of the fetish repertoire; more underbrush has to be cleared away to discern the boundaries between erotica and pornography. For instance, a nude photo or painting may be erotic or pornographic – or perhaps neither. I would argue that if it meets the conditions I have stated for erotic art then it is best classified as erotica and not pornography. But what qualifies as a pornographic object? The idea presented here suggests that pornography appeals to the baser forms of sexual attraction, so what if the nude photograph intentionally and deliberately attracts the viewer’s attention to an explicit display of the sexual organs that is
out of proportion and balance
with the nude body perceived as a gestalt? Or, what if proportionality and grace are disrupted through exaggeration of one aspect of the object to the neglect of other features of the nude? On the view here advocated one would be inclined to judge that such a photo is pornographic and not erotic; fetish instruments and roles need not be part of the sexual stimulus plan. However, the nude so depicted is far different than the erotic art.

This again takes us back to the origin of pornography as related to prostitutes and their commercial activities. Attraction to the pornographic object has nothing to do with any sort of empathetic relation with the object.What affects and attracts the viewer is of a purely sexual nature denuded of any authentic care for the subject of the presentation. One could make the same point involving the relation he or she has with a prostitute; the relation has nothing to do with authentic care for the person as a being worthy of moral respect, nor need it involve love, if by that term we mean interest in the interest of another, or of unconditional openness to the other. It lacks concern for the interest, goals, ideals, or respect for the other. More to the point, the prostitute is a
commodity
intended to satisfy the interest of the buyer, and the buyer, in turn, returns coins for flesh. Outside of that, there is no care involving the prostitute for his or her own sake.

One other point may be made to separate erotica from pornography. Earlier, I maintained that the pornographic object explicitly draws the viewer’s attention to the distorted feature of the object. Whether or not erotica qualifies for fine art is a question considered at the end of this inquiry, but it should be clear that pornography is distinct from erotica and fine art for the same reasons. The visual presentation of the object does not have the properties of proportion, theme and variation, and gradation of color, nor does it display unity in diversity. In fact, part of what makes it pornography is just the opposite of these traits. Stephen Pepper, for instance, might well argue that pornographic depictions cause sensory and attentive fatigue. The pornographic object is purposely out of harmonic balance, it does not display unity within diversity; moreover, the features one is drawn to end in repetition and, as Pepper argues, to fatigue in the long run.
⁴
It is for this reason that the viewer of pornographic material is attracted to the object. Some features are exaggerated out of proportion for the purpose of fixating the viewer’s attention on one character or feature of the work to the neglect of other aspects of the presentation.Thus the viewer can feed off of his or her own vulgar desire for self-indulgence in the exaggerated feature of the work. In this case we lose focus on the gestalt and on the “distance” between the perceiver and the object in works of erotica. Pornography then becomes a vehicle of selfish absorption.This being the case we can further add that disinterestedness in no way plays into the observer/object relation in pornography.