I watched a show on SBS last night called Sex in the Worlds Cities. It was an awesome, sexy night-in SBS, thank you.
This episode was set in Berlin, visiting art/strip shows, sex services and clubs that are prevalent in the city.
My boyfriend made a comment which broached the question – what is it that makes nudity either art, or pornography?
At first, his responses were simple and aesthetically speaking, only considering the visual and concrete aspects; “pornography is cheezball”. While this is true in some cut and dry cases, it is not ultimately due to cheezeballness if nudity is seen as art or pornography.
You can have nudity that is not cheezball, but still pornographic – if it has an element of exploitation.
For example, child nudity where the photography has a high chance of being a product of abuse or exploitation. A child is too young to have the appropriate faculties to be able to consent to that activity. Purely law speaking, it is also illegal.
We narrowed it down – the difference between art and pornography concerning nudity is exploitation.
However, there was that infamous case of Bill Hensons’ work being brought into question. For years, Bill Henson produced beautiful photography of young adults, teenagers and children. The work was dark, moody, and had elements of voyeurism – being included in on a private moment.
His work was not exploitative, but more appreciative, celebrating and admiring the beauty of youth, the beauty of teen angst, the beauty of innocence. For years, his work was unanimously accepted.
Update the context – there is a new fear in the world concerning the threat of predators and paedophilia. The stars of Hey Dad, Bill Cosby, Rolf Harris – all pedos! Church leaders and priests – pedos! The images of young children and young teen girls are now brought under the microscope, and the question most contentious was put to his work – is this pornography?
Revisiting our previous thoughts – his work was not cheezball; not exploitative. Regarding the means of accessing his child subjects – he had said he had express permission, full disclosure and consent from parents – his work also served to passively admire, view-from-afar a certain beauty he saw in his subjects; was this still pornography?
The audience that view his work, some may have paedophilic tendencies and intentions, but that is not the responsibility of the artist. What he served and aimed to do – the meaning of his work – was to capture a delicate moment. It was not invasive or exploitative, which is the main vulgar aspect of pornography.
A necessary element of being exploitative needs a clear, demonstrated power exchange – the exploited are usually of a lower status, or have lower power and influence. The exploiter is never usually identified, freeing them from persecution and reputation. The exploiter has power over their identity, or the perception of their identity, while the exploited are used, scrutinised, analysed. The exploited are robbed of the right to respect and dignity, and are debased as an object to be utilised. The use is of benefit to the viewer and consumer, and usually not an agreed transaction with the exploited – it robs the exploited, and the consumer/exploiter benefit. The exploited may be paid, but that doesn’t compensate for later humiliation and social vilification (or, does it?)
Browncardigan.com had uploaded the old meme of photoshopping pornographic images to make them PG and SFW. I take offence to this image, and it pains me to display it. Despite having awareness of the context of this image, I understand the joke and statement of this image – but I find it irresponsible and hypocritical in general to find this image funny without recognition of the exploitative act in the first place. Also, to display this one image alone without the group of other images modified in the same way, it seems to be singling out the one female in the pornographic image:
Browncardigan doesn’t entirely have an agenda in their curation. It is more of a internet pop-culture repository. Amongst other websites out there – lememe.com, fuckjerry.tumblr.com, endlessballs.com – there are many more to come to replace them. icanhascheezeburger.com is all but long gone in the the meme blog stakes!
Why I dislike this image – sure, it is old hat to say that pornography is exploitative, poor woman, what if she was your sister/mother/auntie; its been played out. However, to single out the women in this industry, and neglect to identify the men that produce this industry, consume from this industry, “act” and participate with the women in this industry are also to blame; however they escape the identification, humiliation and vilification that the female stars get.
The female stars do benefit by having an opportunity to make money in participating in this industry. Sure, there is an avenue for women who are inclined towards this industry, and I have no judgement whatsoever about them.
What peeves me, are the men who run it, consume it, participate in it – and also escape the treatment that the women get.
YES! This may be a tangent to my original question; when is nudity considered art as opposed to pornographic.
However, by asking if Bill Hensons’ art, or anything else produced and intended to be “art” is put into question, the ethics of the pornographic industry and the treatment of the participants in it need to be questioned further.
It seems the shame of society consuming these industries is enough to want to close up about it – neglecting the bigger issues or whether something should rightly be considered art or pornographic.
What do you think?
prrrowl 