Define Pornography »
The reactions of spectators regarding erotic art have been documented closely like an abridged history of public views on sex. Every time an artist pushes the boundary, we are inclined to ask where the line can be drawn. Are there inherent differences between art and pornography or are they too closely entwined?
John Currin is a very well known artist whose paintings have a Renaissance feel to them – beautiful bodies in delicate, precise paint strokes; thick colours on canvas. What sets him apart from the movement is the explicit sexual nature of his work.
The technical aspects of the paintings are in every way perfect. The process from paintbrush to canvas is simply the creation of art. So how are we expected to react when the finished result is nothing less than a glorified porno? Does it nullify the painting’s status as art, or reinforce it?
Artists like John Currin could be seen as liberators of sexuality, demolishing the curtain of censorship and granting power to the female body. On the other hand it could be exploitation of the female form. After all, the Guerilla Girls were spot on when they said a naked woman has a better chance in being exhibited than a female artist.
To summarise, my view is that there is no line neither should it be drawn. To free sexual expressions is what I see as a contributive measure to do away with gender archetypes. Art is there to stimulate the mind, pornography stimulates the body — who are we to discriminate when a piece is capable of doing both?
Have you heard about the Bill Henson case here in Australia? Basically a photographer who’s been taking naked photos of minors for years (it’s kind of his schtick), was suddenly involved in a furor about the same photographs that he’s been taking for years. One of those cases that the media grabs a hold of and doesn’t let go!
Look it up on Wikipedia, it’s fascinating. :) There’ll be a book coming out about it soon as well.
Fantastic example. I looked at his photos and don’t see what the big fuss is about. They are most certainly children and most certainly nude, but the supposed sexual aspects don’t come from the photographer himself – they come from the viewer. These photographs don’t have to be sexual.
Of course they’re probably investigating whether or not he abused the children as opposed to the intention of his work. The photographs are simply what triggered the investigation. However if he is guilty of harming children I hope he rots in jail :/
Hilarious that some have rushed in claiming “it’s different to painting of nudes because it’s photography”. Lol. Egon Schiele used to bring in young teen prostitutes and paint them as they masturbated. I love his work but I won’t deny it’s completely twisted. Much more so than Bill Henson’s work.
It’s a tetchy subject but as long as the children aren’t harmed/abused then I don’t see why not. A good artist creates scandal, and makes their audience think and reevaluate their views.