Fine Line between Porn and Art
Nick Parker
Issue date: 2/24/05 Section: Opinion
I saw a poster on my way to The Globe staff meeting a few weeks ago that said "Porn Nation." That got me thinking about our societal woe towards what some of us have termed offensive.
How can the lines be drawn between art and pornography? Who can discern between expression and exploitation? What can differ between smut and style? These are the questions that our long-available freedom of speech has brought forth.
Whether it is in movies, books, video games, newspapers, the internet or music, there seems to be no end to what outlets people will allow themselves in which to find pornography. Violence, sex, obscenely profane language or general exploitation of an animal or another human being can be found in any of these outlets.
Does this mean that all or even any of these constitutes pornography? They're all components to which intense emotions can be triggered, but to what extent should we deem them pornographic?
If the blood shoots out in a stream from the victim's head instead of slowly trickling down his face; is that pornographic? If the person using racial epithets is of said race; is that pornography? Or if the sex portrayed is merely for a "cheap" thrill instead of long-thought intellectual stimuli; is that porn?
People are generally easy to offend these days. Whether it is a supposed "off-color remark" (the term of which, in itself, is sort of offensive if put into a racist context) or some type of uncomfortable gesture, people are put off by almost anything nowadays.
Who's to say that a picture of a beautiful naked woman is pornographic? Or who's to think that a depiction of a nude man posing should be hidden from all eyes? If things like this offend you, then crawl back into your cave of conservatism and don't look at this particular thing. Let the people that enjoy it do just that while you do what makes yourself happy.
Not only did I describe what some people may deem pornographic with my previous comment, but I related to some works that have been considered classics of Renaissance art. The Statue of David, biblically themed portraits and even motherly depictions of love have all contained nudity, but are still considered almost necessary to modern art. If you still think that all nudity should be thought of as wrong and nasty, then perhaps you should step out of your third grade mentality for a while and realize how mature that actually sounds.
Everyone has their own opinions about porn and what constitutes it. Mine is this: "If you don't like it, then don't watch/look/listen/participate in it. People are always up in arms as to the nature of true pornography, when they could be busy paying attention to what their child is doing. The virtues of one person are never going to be completely contiguous with another's, so why not live the way you'd like in order for the other to do the same?
It all comes down to what you think of art. If art to you is a beautifully painted sunrise, then please don't criticize another for loving a painting of a man and a woman in a sexually-charged pose, because beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
How can the lines be drawn between art and pornography? Who can discern between expression and exploitation? What can differ between smut and style? These are the questions that our long-available freedom of speech has brought forth.
Whether it is in movies, books, video games, newspapers, the internet or music, there seems to be no end to what outlets people will allow themselves in which to find pornography. Violence, sex, obscenely profane language or general exploitation of an animal or another human being can be found in any of these outlets.
Does this mean that all or even any of these constitutes pornography? They're all components to which intense emotions can be triggered, but to what extent should we deem them pornographic?
If the blood shoots out in a stream from the victim's head instead of slowly trickling down his face; is that pornographic? If the person using racial epithets is of said race; is that pornography? Or if the sex portrayed is merely for a "cheap" thrill instead of long-thought intellectual stimuli; is that porn?
People are generally easy to offend these days. Whether it is a supposed "off-color remark" (the term of which, in itself, is sort of offensive if put into a racist context) or some type of uncomfortable gesture, people are put off by almost anything nowadays.
Who's to say that a picture of a beautiful naked woman is pornographic? Or who's to think that a depiction of a nude man posing should be hidden from all eyes? If things like this offend you, then crawl back into your cave of conservatism and don't look at this particular thing. Let the people that enjoy it do just that while you do what makes yourself happy.
Not only did I describe what some people may deem pornographic with my previous comment, but I related to some works that have been considered classics of Renaissance art. The Statue of David, biblically themed portraits and even motherly depictions of love have all contained nudity, but are still considered almost necessary to modern art. If you still think that all nudity should be thought of as wrong and nasty, then perhaps you should step out of your third grade mentality for a while and realize how mature that actually sounds.
Everyone has their own opinions about porn and what constitutes it. Mine is this: "If you don't like it, then don't watch/look/listen/participate in it. People are always up in arms as to the nature of true pornography, when they could be busy paying attention to what their child is doing. The virtues of one person are never going to be completely contiguous with another's, so why not live the way you'd like in order for the other to do the same?
It all comes down to what you think of art. If art to you is a beautifully painted sunrise, then please don't criticize another for loving a painting of a man and a woman in a sexually-charged pose, because beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
