Pornographic Art I Shall Term the Problem of Appreciation
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Matthew Kieran 31 Matthew Kieran PORNOGRAPHIC ART “ ornographic art” is an oxymoron. At best, pornographic repre- Psentations can only be bad art and, at worst, they cannot be art at all. This is the received view.1 But what underwrites such aesthetic contempt? There are three distinct lines of thought typically held to warrant the apparent truism. Purely definitional considerations are often cited as showing that pornography, as a matter of principle, cannot be artistically valuable. The purpose of sexual arousal is some- times adduced as rendering the production of pornographic represen- tations artistically indifferent. It is also suggested, albeit far less often, that though we may appreciate a work both as art and as pornography, we cannot do so at one and the same time, i.e. we cannot appreciate a work as pornographic art. I will show that not only is the received view without warrant but, moreover, there are works which are valuable as pornographic art. I The dismissal of pornographic art by definitional fiat runs as follows. Pornographic representations are characterized as having the sole aim of eliciting sexual arousal. By contrast, although erotic representations might have this aim, they can also have other aims, including artistic ones. Hence, an erotic representation can qualify as art in virtue of its possession of, and possible realization of, artistic intent, but a porno- graphic representation can never be art, or be valuable as such, since by definition such a representation does not possess artistic intent.2 But what reason do we have to grant this characterization? Pornogra- phy essentially involves the explicit representation of sexual behavior Philosophy and Literature, © 2001, 25: 31–45 32 Philosophy and Literature and attributes. Naturally this is insufficient to constitute pornography since anatomical drawings or medical textbooks may be sexually explicit without being pornographic. Pornography as such seeks, via the explicit representation of sexual behavior and attributes, to elicit sexual arousal or desire. How does the pornographic stand in relation to the erotic? The erotic clearly need not involve sexual explicitness. Corregio’s Io, Degas’s portraits of ballet dancers, Robert Mapplethorpe’s flower studies, for example, are devoid of sexual explicitness and yet they successfully solicit sensuous thoughts, feelings and associations which are or may be arousing. The erotic essentially aims at eliciting sexual thoughts, feelings, and associations found to be arousing. Thus there are many things which are erotic but not pornographic—such as a representation of someone suggestively eating strawberries—but things which are pornographic are also erotic. Pornography is a subspecies of the erotic or erotica—it seeks to realize the aim internal to all that is erotic, but via the distinctive means of sexually explicit representation, which many other erotic representations do not utilize. Of course a work whose primary aim, as an erotic representation, is sexual arousal may also have other aims, including artistic ones. An artist may intend to produce a work which is sexually arousing and, moreover, intend to do so in such a way that the artistry deployed conveys a certain view, cognitive-affective state, or attitude regarding what is depicted or the nature of the arousal elicited. This statement is no different in principle from the recognition that Eisenstein can intend and successfully produce a work that aims both to be propa- ganda and artistically valuable. Indeed a work produced solely in order to be sexually arousing, without any artistic intention, may yet artfully suggest an insight, view or attitude towards what is represented. Similarly, we recognize that someone may intentionally produce a religious icon with the sole intent of evoking religious devotion, and yet produce at the same time an icon of artistic worth. Now, in terms of definitional characterization alone, we have no reason to suppose that, as a matter of principle, what is possible with respect to the erotic generally is precluded with respect to a particular subcategory of the erotic—namely the pornographic. What we require is a reason which explains why the pornographic may be inimical to the realization of artistic value. The possibility of pornographic art cannot be ruled out by definitional fiat. Carving out the difference between the pornographic and other forms of the erotic in terms of sole and multiple intent may gain some Matthew Kieran 33 of its force from the kinds of representations adduced as paradigmatic. There are many representations we would consider to be both paradigmatically erotic and of high artistic value—for example, certain works by Klimt, Degas, Gill, Rodin, Canova, Tintoretto, Goya, Ingres, some of Shakespeare’s sonnets, Ovid’s The Art of Seduction, Scheherezade’s Tales of 1001 Arabian Nights, or Buñuel’s Belle de Jour, to name but a few. By contrast, if we think of paradigmatic pornographic representations, from late Victorian flick books to magazines such as Hustler, there seems to be no artistic intent or merit of any kind. Yet, as with many apparently natural contrasts, this approach cannot do the work in sustaining the definitional distinction. It is obviously true that most pornographic representations possess no artistic intent or merit. But the same is true with respect to most representational forms generally. Most pictures in card shops, most novels in run-of-the- mill bookshops and many soap operas and films similarly possess little by way of artistic intent or merit. We do not take this as evidence that visual depiction, novels or films cannot possess artistic intent or merit. Indeed, in particular genres the ratio seems exceedingly high—photo- graphic portraiture, romance, fantasy, or science fiction novels, for example, all seem predominated by formulaic, flat, and artistically uninteresting works. But this does not preclude some such instances from possessing artistic intent or of being of high value as art. Moreover, in certain genres, such as pulp fiction, much of the early work possessed little artistic intent or merit and only as the genre evolved did the first novels and films of artistic interest start to emerge.3 Even were one to grant that there are no pornographic works of artistic interest as yet, it remains an open matter as to whether this is due to the nature and limitations inherent in pornography, or if this is a contingent fact due to certain historical and sociocultural factors. It could be that, since pornography has been held to be deeply immoral, obscene and subject to stringent censorship, those who possess artistic talent are yet to exercise it in relation to pornographic subject matter. We would not really expect spivs looking to make money illicitly from pornography to concern themselves with artistic considerations. This might explain why pornography has not evolved in a manner amenable to artistic considerations, whereas other genres which emerged from the unpromising beginnings of pulp fiction, such as Westerns, adven- ture stories, and detective thrillers, have. Furthermore, it is far from obvious that there are no artistically valuable pornographic representa- tions. In literature, Nicholson Baker’s Vox, Georges Bataille’s Story of the 34 Philosophy and Literature Eye, the Kama Sutra, and, in visual art, some of the later work of Picasso, the Egon Schiele portraits, the work of Hokusai and Utamaro, or certain Kama Sutra illustrations, to name but a few, all seem to conform to the characterization of pornography and yet apparently possess both artistic intent and no little merit. Indeed, the sexual candor of much ancient Greek, Greco-Roman, Roman, and medieval Indian art may suggest that the paucity of art works in Christian influenced civilization which are sexually explicit and which solicit arousal is an anomaly rather than the norm. Now it could be that we are mistaken in thinking such works really are pornographic or possess much by way of artistic intent or merit. But the onus is on someone who would claim that our pre-reflective judgments here are in error. II The definitional move does not stand up to scrutiny. The primary purpose of a representation as pornography does not preclude it from possessing other aims—including artistic ones. But a related thought, which I shall term the problem of purposiveness, is often cited as showing that pornography is inimical to the realization of artistic value. In essence, the sexual explicitness, and the inherently formulaic and fantastical nature of pornography, in the service of arousal, are taken to preclude artistic expressivity and significance.4 The claim has some initial plausibility. The more explicit the detail about the nature, size, and state of physiological arousal of the sexual organs, the greater the emphasis on showing the mechanics of sex, and the more our attention is drawn to signs of sexual attraction and desire, the more leaden, flat, tedious and uninteresting a representation seems to become. For the greater the explicit concentration on the physi- ological, biological, and more generally animalistic aspects of sexual behavior, the fewer the expressive possibilities apparently are. Hence, it is thought, sexual explicitness in the service of arousal cannot convey the states of mind, responses, and attitudes of characters, the nature of their actions (as distinct from behavior) or, thus, any perspective of interest the implied author may have upon what is represented. On this view, a pornographic representation will have formulaic markers for certain states, characters, and situations but these are merely signaled in a minimal short hand manner rather than drawn out in any complex and interesting way—in order to make room for as much sexual explicitness as possible. So one is told that sexual Matthew Kieran 35 antagonism exists, that a character is in a state of desire, suffering or ecstasy, without one’s being imaginatively engaged in any way.