Porn - Philosophy for Everyone: How to Think With Kink (26 page)

The concept of disinterestedness introduced here is an essential trait of the aesthetic experience. It allows the work of art, its expression of embodied emotion, to be communicated by the artist – at least in rare cases – to the disinterested aesthetic percipient. As I have characterized pornography, such disinterestedness plays no part whatsoever in the viewer. In fact the viewer comes closer to being a
voyeur
; one who seeks sexual gratification by watching the sexual activities of others from an undisclosed hiding place. The voyeur cannot be entirely disinterested because she must guard her private vantage point; fear of being discovered and objectified would strip away her subjectivity. Moreover, the porn object cannot be viewed with disinterest since the would-be aesthetic properties are intentionally violated for the purposes of genital arousal.

Up to now I have endeavored to highlight basic differences between pornography and erotica. And where I have argued that pornography, at least as I have characterized it, ought not be placed in the category of fine art, there still remains works of erotica that I find more ambiguous and problematic when trying to classify them as fine art or not. Part of this ambiguity is due to the fact that erotica, as I have characterized it, seems to share some of the traits that go along with fine art. At the same time, the above account of erotica raises questions that may be central to whether or not it is to be classified as fine art. Thus the following questions: How far can disinterestedness be operative to the viewer of erotic material? To what degree does the sexual arousal of erotic art compromise the distance of the viewer, therefore conflating the boundary between erotica and pornography?

Aesthetic Contemplation: The Romantic and the Beautiful

The answer to these questions rests with the attitude in which erotica is or is not deemed to be fine art, still keeping in mind the demarcation between pornography and erotica.

Remember that erotic works of art involve sexual arousal at the core of their disclosure to the perceiver. So if disinterestedness is essential to the aesthetic attitude, is it possible for the viewer to be disinterested in his/ her perception of erotic works? In the case of erotica it would appear that the viewer is not excited in the same way that one who views porn is; on the other hand, there is more involved in erotica than simply the display of aesthetic qualities like proportion, balance, and unity in diversity. Keeping with this thought, we may recall Pepper’s analysis of aesthetic design and say that the exposure to pornography may lead to fatigue on the part of the perceiver, yet this need not be true of the viewer in his/her relation to the erotic work as long as the artist has expressed the qualities identified with fine art.

Having said this, however, it would appear to be problematic as to whether or not erotica meets the requirement of disinterestedness necessary for a genuine aesthetic experience. While the concept of aesthetic contemplation certainly deserves an essay of its own, one may briefly characterize the aesthetic attitude as it has come down to us from two noteworthy figures: Arthur Schopenhauer and Edward Bullough.

Schopenhauer writes:

If one . . . surrenders the whole power of his spirit to the intuition, sinks into the intuition, and lets his entire consciousness be filled by the peaceful contemplation of the directly present natural object, such as a landscape, a tree, a rock, or a building, that is, forgets his individuality, his will, and remains only as pure subject, as a clear mirror of the object; so that it is as though the object alone were there, without anyone that perceives it, and he can no longer separate the person that intuits from the intuition, but both have become one, since the entire consciousness is filled and occupied by a single intuitive image; if in such degree the object has passed out of all relation to something outside itself, and the subject out of all relation to the will: then, what is so known is no longer the individual thing as such, . . . thereby the person engaged in the intuition is no longer an individual: for the individual has lost himself in such intuition.
⁵

This passage reflects the interconnection of Schopenhauer’s metaphysics, which is founded on a blind striving
Will
, with his account of aesthetic disinterest. For our aim, it is not necessary to discuss the metaphysical ideas associated with his theory of the aesthetic attitude. I do however believe that regardless of his thought about reality it is possible to extract his notion of aesthetic distance. One can choose to accept or reject the metaphysics that goes along with it and still discern what is said regarding the attitude of the perceiver in the aesthetic contemplation. The dissolution of the ego’s desire is a prerequisite for the highest level of aesthetic attention. Edward Bullough labeled this attitude “psychical distance,” in that the perceiver, in this attitude, concentrates “direct attention to the features ‘objectively’ constituting the phenomenon.”
⁶
Berndtson’s analysis brings together the core idea of these two accounts. He avers that two traits are prevalent in aesthetic contemplation: (1) “intrinsic interest,” because the perceiver has interest in the art object for its own sake without concern for any pragmatic or other value, and (2) “disinterest,” because the perceiver is detached from his own interest while being absorbed in the art object. Part of what it means to be disinterested is that the viewer is not
uninterested
, but that the sole concentration is directed objectively to the work of art for its own sake. (Notice that this is the opposite in cases of pornography, where the viewer is self-absorbed in the exaggerated disclosure of the pornographic material.) In works of erotica – as I have characterized it – part of the problem is that the perceiver will not be capable of the disinterested attitude and have intrinsic interest, since erotica has to do with the arousal of sexual feelings in the perceiver. She or he is not completely detached from the erotic work since erotica draws one to the object for romantic intentions. This is true even though we have admitted that in the erotic work the artist has succeeded in impregnating the erotic object such that it is endowed with the aesthetic qualities that are also expressed in works of fine art.

For the perceiver to be disinterested he/she must assume a contemplative attitude that permits attention to the object
for its own sake
. Obviously, this is not always the case; one can imagine a person never having an aesthetic experience in their entire life. And I also acknowledge that there may be other reasons why one attends to a work of art other than for pure aesthetic appreciation. For example, one may consider the utility of a work or one may even be so distracted by their own interests that having a disinterested attitude is not possible. I certainly cannot assume a disinterested attitude when I’m currently worried about paying bills or distracted by a noisy neighbor. But things are much different in works of erotica, since erotic works
provoke
rather than
express
sexual feelings in the observer; in erotica the observer is called to action.

As I suggested earlier the difference between provoking and expressing is crucial to the theme I want to convey. Provocation by the art object greatly diminishes the possibility of disinterested distance by the perceiver because it stimulates in him or her some type of action for union with the object. Artistic expression, on the other hand, means the intent of the artist is embodied in the object; moreover, the emotive content expressed can be made present to the disinterested aesthetic observer without the perceiver being motivated to act in some way toward the object. What Bullough called “psychical distance” between the perceiver and the art object cannot be achieved in works of erotica because the viewer is incited to attend to the erotic object. That attention differs from the pure contemplation of the work. One might say that ulterior motives are involved in the relation between the perceiver and the erotic object. Again, it seems that Feinberg misses the point about distance concerning
both
pornography and erotica when he claims, “Not only erotically realistic art but also artful pornography
can
satisfy the criterion of interest. . . . Distance is preserved in erotic pictorial art through the use of artificial stylized images.”
⁷
Here Feinberg does acknowledge the criterion of distance. But because erotica minimally involves some degree of sexual arousal, the object is reflected back to the interests of the observer rather that to the interest of the object for its own sake. Another way of saying this is that the provocation of the erotic object, due to its sexual nature, subverts the possibility of attending to the object for its own sake. I maintain that if it did not do this then it would not succeed in being a work of erotica.

We have then another reason for distinguishing erotica from fine art. The aesthetic attitude endures in the work of fine art, but the same cannot be said for works of erotica. However – and I think this point is crucial – if the above characterizations of erotic art and fine art are correct, the difference between the two is a difference of degree, not of kind. Erotica in the visual media are indeed art, though it may not have the capacity for psychical distance that works of fine art possess.

One is apt to criticize my view in the following way: “Look who’s conflating the issue now. On the one hand, you argue that the aesthetic attitude is an essential feature for the appreciation of fine art and we can’t have that with erotic art. Then you flip flop and say that there may be some overlap between fine art and erotica, thus maybe erotica can,
in some instances
, fulfill the demands of fine art.”

Am I unable to distinguish dusk from dawn? Perhaps, but there may be good reasons why I cannot. Fine art and erotica, I confess, do share aesthetic qualities. Both are objects of art appreciation. But my focus has been on the attitude of the aesthetic observer, more so than on the art object, and even less on the intent of the artist. I propose to look at fine art and erotica as limiting concepts, or if you will, as ideals that may or may not be achieved. Sometimes there may be clear-cut cases where, on my criteria, it is possible to distinguish one from the other, but not
all the time
. This is likely because psychical distance has much to do with the psychological attitude or mindset of the aesthetic observer. Perhaps an example will allow me to demonstrate my inability to definitively draw a line between fine art and erotica in some cases. As an illustration one may take Degas’
Nude Study
.This piece is exquisite and graceful, evoking as it does a complex of emotions that may split the psyche between the embodied form of pure art and the joyful lust of erotic pleasure. I view this as a paradigm case indicative of the murky line between fine art and erotica.Why? Because I have intuited it, at different times over the years, as erotica sometimes and as fine art at other times.What makes this confused evaluation possible? We may well be reminded that the aesthetic distance takes a psychic effort on the part of the perceiver to achieve. According to this paradigm case,
Nude Study
is erotic one time and at other times the disinterested contemplation of line, shape, color, harmony, and balance delivers my attention to the domain of fine art.

One may now draw a sharper and more definitive contrast between pornography and erotica. The difference between the two is not just a difference of degree, but rather a difference of kind. Of course pornography, like erotica and fine art, may appeal to various tastes. But when it comes to aesthetic considerations alone it would appear that pornography can in no way – unlike erotica – be mistaken for fine art because it does not allow an aesthetic attitude to be taken with respect to the object. The pornographic object attracts the vulgar and common themes of brute sexuality. If the aim of pornography is sexual arousal this can be achieved in a variety of ways without involving aesthetic properties as part and parcel of the perceptual attitude; it renders no capacity for psychical distance. Further, even if we reject the possibility of psychical distance as a conceptual myth – and some aestheticians do – it still would not follow that pornography could be reckoned among the fine arts, owing to the fact that pornographic works do not embody aesthetic features disclosed in fine art. I hold that fine art has the potential to yield an aesthetic experience for the perceiver – on the condition that one possesses the necessary disinterest without thought of other motives. When attending to pornographic works, there is no interest in the work for its own sake. The interest one has in pornography is motivated by sexual interest that has more to do with the viewer than with the object. In this case the object has instrumental value and is a means to an end, the end being vulgar satisfaction and base sexual arousal.

The distinction endorsed above between erotica and pornography may seem obvious, though it has been my intention to show that there are clear boundaries between the two so that one is less likely to confuse one with the other. Part of my argument for drawing this distinction hinges on the notion of psychical distance between the viewer and the object. Because the works of erotica infuse aesthetic qualities into the object there is a degree in which one may consider the work for its own sake, but this is not entirely true since sexual arousal plays a role, thus compromising the psychical distance between viewer and object. Pornography, however, falls under a different set of categories in which it is to be characterized as a work of a significantly different kind than erotica or fine art. Largely because the interest the viewer has in the object is not, and cannot be, disinterested; the motivation is to channel the erotic stimulation of the viewer back upon him or her self. It would appear then to serve a purely pragmatic function.