The art versus pornography debate has been around for as long as pornographic mediums have existed; “the age-old debate between art and pornography revolves around tired old questions: is art pornography?” (Ives) The debate is centered around the public perception of pornography versus art; “Is there a set of attitudes, values, ethics, and morals ascribed to art but not pornography?” (Ives) The answer to this question is yes, especially when looking at the dynamics of our mainstream society. The dominant school of thought is that there is a lesser set of values applied to pornography and thus pornographic mediums are not looked to with the same respect as other mediums. In the book Wild Zones, Kelly Ives analyzes the relationship between art, pornography, and feminism. For this blog post, I want to look at Ives’s analysis of art, sexuality, and pornography in terms of the patriarchy and sex-positive art culture. I believe that Ives’s evidence is enough to end the art versus pornography debate once and for all, as the debate’s existence is contingent on harmful patriarchal ideologies. Many feminists have existed on both sides of the pornography versus art binary and typically anti-porn feminists voice concerns against porn as an art form. While everyone is entitled to their own opinion, I think it is important to break down the ways in which our society perceives porn in order to prove that porn is a valid type of art that should be given as much respect and appreciation as all other “high” art forms.
The “High Art” Nude
In the world of fine art, there is tasteful art and there is “tasteless” art, according to most art critics at least. Art is considered “high art” if it is tasteful in the sense that it’s rooted in refinement and purity. Other art forms that are not accredited as “high art” are then analyzed in the context of the vulgar or the disrespectful. Art critics and creators alike have placed pornography in the tasteless art category. In this sense, art that features the nude body is not considered tasteful unless it’s branded as a high art nude:
“The high art nude, in painting or sculpture, in the patriarchal view, justifies its existence by the brilliance of its production, the sumptuousness of its colour and form…”. ( Ives)
According to the patriarchal view of the art versus pornography debate, the high art nude is a product of eroticism rather than pornography, and
“eroticism is justified and good because it is ‘ high art’, it is superbly crafted, it is a ‘work of art.’” (Ives)
In order to differentiate between the patriarchy’s perception of eroticism versus pornography, one should look for evidence of interpretation and creativity, as “... the more a picture contains evidence of interpretative, creative elaboration, the closer it is to art.’” (Ives) For most anti-porn intellectuals and philosophers the theory is that “... erotic art is art because it is done well. Pornography is simply bad art.” (Ives) The reason why the patriarchy perceives pornography as bad art is that authentic pornography is not always aesthetic- real sex is not always pretty. In this sense, patriarchal ideology is that
“nudes are OK provided that they are aesthetically pleasing, provided they remain ‘in the realm of contemplation’..”.(Ives)
The realm of contemplation is one that is not rooted in reality but rather imagination- nudes need to be created outside of the box.
Pornography as Art
The female nude has historically been considered an art form in western culture,
“The female nude is the highest form of non-religious art, and it confers a religious awe in its consumers.” (Ives)
However, if we are following patriarchal ideology, the female nude is only considered art in the context of a painting or sculpture, not within the context of pornography, as “the artists of the west, like the pornographers, are mainly men.: (Ives) Within the art versus pornography debate, the female nude exists on both sides of the binary. The female nude is always a portrait of the female body, the same female body that “...is already ‘objectified’ even before it is painted or represented.” (Ives) Male artists who paint the female form have historically constructed it in a way that adheres to the westernized notion of feminine beauty. The “high” female nude then would be painted by a man who appreciates only the beauty of a woman who adheres to such standards.
In reality, the pornographic female nude is a “high nude” in the sense that its existence is rooted in creativity, Ives notes that art critics “... do not like to admit the amount of sex there is in art, the amount of erotic energy there is in creativity.” (Ives) This same amount of erotic energy exists in pornography and sets the female nude into motion. This sense of motion creates a female nude that is both “erotic and obscene…”, it is the balance of the vulgar and the tasteful. In this sense, the female nude can be seen as a bridge within the pornography versus art debate. When looking at self-proclaimed anti-porn feminists the lack of an intersectional approach to their feminism is clear. Intersectionality looks to understand the ways in which one’s identities intersect within society, and how society perceives them as a result of these identities. When looking at the female nude, patriarchy influences the identity of the body. Feminism then looks to rewrite this patriarchal definition of the body:
“ Feminism seeks to rewrite men’s definition of the body and eroticism.” (Ives)
The pornography versus art debate is contingent on the patriarchal definition of what is constituted as art and what isn’t. By applying an intersectional lens to feminism, it becomes clear that pornography is art under the restraint of outdated patriarchal and victorian ideologies.
By: Alyssa Morterud