The definition of pornography and art?
"What is the definition of pornography?" seems like a simple question at first but come to think of it, it's complicated. I actually had to think about this cause of a comic I was working on. Like with my other titles, I am going to sell it online and accept paypal. Only problem is paypal doesn't allow any transactions that involve "pornographic material" and my comic happens to have a lot of explicit penetration, which may or may not be considered "porn" by most people. I remember though that movies like In the Realm of the Senses, Baise Moi, and Short Bus have hardcore penetration and can in fact be purchased through paypal on ebay or a bunch of other online stores that accept paypal. What in those movies makes the explicit penetration non-pornographic and acceptable?
So what is "porn" exactly? How do we differentiate it from "art"? Apparently those movies I mentioned are "art" rather than "porn", hence why paypal allows the transactions of them while not allowing a title like "Big Wet Asses" or "Pump my Ass Full of Cum". To define porn. We must first go over what it is NOT:
-Can't be merely nudity since medical journals and Michaelangelo's David are not porn.
-Can't be explicit sex alone since In the Realm of the Senses, Baise Moi, and Short Bus have sex but are not considered porn since paypal allows the transaction of those movies. Plus tapes of animals having sex isn't inherently porno. I also remember a documentary as a kid that showed how babies were made, actual sex was shown yet not considered a porno. What is "explicit sex" though? Just the showing of genitals? Cumshots? Again, those things can be seen in documentaries.
-Can't be everything that sexually arouses since an elementary school yearbook arouses pedophiles and that yearbook sure as hell is not porno (if it was, then a whole lot of houses have illegal kiddie porn).
-Can't be everything that sexually arouses WITH explicit sex since the movies In the Realm of the Senses and Short Bus don't intend to arouse yet has explicit sex and can still potentially arouse someone.
-Can't be everything that intends to arouse since you can intend a carrot is sexually arousing but nobody would call a carrot pornographic. Also a couple that accidentally left their camera on while fucking just made what is considered porn, yet they never intended to.
-Can't be everything that both intends and does in fact sexually arouse since a photo of a woman still clothed can intend to arouse and does in fact arouse, yet still not called porno and thus can still be sold on ebay.
The least inconsistent definition I came up with is that it's something that intends to sexually arouse with explicit sex. Intention is subjective though. So if hypothetically I make a movie and intend only one short hardcore sex scene to be arousing, it's "porn" while In the Realm of the Senses is an art film cause it didn't "intend" to be porn even though it has more hardcore sex than my movie and can in fact sexually arouse?!?!?!?! What the hell is "sex" to begin with? Reproduction, pleasure, genital contact? Is a guy that has sex only to make a million children more sexual than a virgin that masturbates occasionally?
Maybe establishing a definition for art would make distinguishing art from porn clearer? So what is art? Anything painted or drawn? When people hear the word "art", they'll associate it with pencils and brushes right? So diagrams and maps are art? Those are drawn right? How come they're not celebrated as works of arts and worshiped in art galleries? And what about music and movies? Those aren't drawn or painted but are they not art? Can was just say anything created for "creativity's sake" is art? So is someone not an artist if he only does art for a living and is not even into the stuff he draws? To his customer his product is still art isn't it? Should we just say "anything created" is art? I can create shit in my stomach, is that art? You say I didn't put any "thought" to it or tried to make a "point" with it. What if taking a shit was my performance art and the point was to celebrate the art of the digestive system in all its natural glory? Is that art then? How come a mere painting of a mountain can be called art even though there is no contrived or intended point to it, it doesn't express or articulate any thoughts or emotions, and it hardly even looks like a mountain to begin with. It was just something painted sloppily by someone to kill time. Is that art still? What if, instead of a mountain, this painter in question preferred paintings of mutilated penises to kill time? Is that art then?
The point I'm trying to make is: You can't call something porn if you can't even establish what art is in the first place because porn goes through the same creation process as "art" does. It is conceived through thought than materialized through a medium just like all other art.
Can we just say art is all in the eye of the beholder since there's an audience out there for everything you can think of? So why doesn't paypal consider porn just one of the many different forms of art, thus allowing its transactions? It has an audience that appreciates it right? And don't give me the "but they appreciate it by jerking off to it" because someone can buy a poster of Britney Spears and appreciate it by jerking off to it. And isn't getting someone to jerk off an art in itself...just a different kind of art?
Enema Nazi Midget Grannie Porn videos, dismembered fetus rape comics, and lolicon (anime with dangerously young looking girls naked) have an audience. If they please someone out there in whatever way, does it have artistic merit? Of course, because art merely is a perception, not an actual object with inherent traits. You can't say art has "4 legs and 2 eyes" as if you were talking about a dog. Rather it's like saying something is "good" or "bad".Good and bad are perceptions. They don't have a quality you can objectively describe and are different for everyone. It is unfortunate though that society's notion of what is "art" is dictated by some religious prudes, enforced by courts, and then institutions like paypal just reflects that sentiment. In my opinion, there shouldn't be an overruling authority that decides what is and isn't art FOR EVERYONE. I don't care if someone thinks something is "not art". Fine, it's not art for you. Don't say it's "not art" as if that were a scientific fact though. As close-minded as paypal is, paypal has a right to make their own judgment over what is art/porn but the government and "community standards" on the otherhand shouldn't be the ones that dictate what everyone should think. They should be neutral over cases of art/porn controversies and just support free speech. Fuck the Miller Test. Everything and nothing can be art. Everything and nothing can be porn.
Porn.....Art....there's a difference? Art is anything I can jerk off to. Support the Free Speech Coalition.
contact: joseangeles AT muchomail.com