Where is the line between art and porn. Short answer: There is none

There was an article published by The Australian just this weekend past that tackled this same topic, but was centered mostly around the film ‘The Girlfriend Experience’. I’ve not seen this film, I probably won’t ever see this film, not because of the subject matter but simply because the concept doesn’t interest me.

I’m less interested in discussing Hollywood here. A pornographic film is classified by a governing body and rated accordingly, it shows genuine intercourse and sexual activity. But what about paintings? Or photography? Or one of the many other art mediums that aren’t filtered through a panel of people wearing high waisted pants viewing them through thick coke bottle glasses and giving their stamp of approval, or denial?

Whether it’s a self taken photograph posted online, or a professional photo shoot, there’s definitely a distinction between erotic art and softcore pornography, but this line is determined by the eyes through which they’re viewed. While a dimly lit black and white shot of a naked girl wearing nothing but lashings of leather could be considering an artistic representation of the human form to many people this same image would be considered debase and immoral.

In a post I made about a month ago about moral obligation I discussed how morality applies to the individual and their views. These are shaped mostly by upbringing and then by what is considered acceptable by a persons peer group. A lot of you might consider that perhaps what you would share with others is art, and what you wouldn’t want your friends to see you viewing, or find on your hard drive. I don’t think that’s the case. An appreciation of artistic merits is an entirely personal thing, and while you mind find the beauty in an image, the knowledge that your peer group might not doesn’t make it any less beautiful.

What the average person considers acceptable has clearly changed as time has passed. What would have been considered completely unacceptable and perverse is drastically different if you look at it in 50, 25 or even 5 year increments. The amount of flesh shown in your average deodorant advertisement today would have been secreted in the pages of a magazine carried home in an opaque bag by my parents if they indulged in such things when they were my age.

Compare if you will ‘The Last Sitting’ photo shoot of Marilyn Monroe, which at the time was definitely considered artistic and not pornographic, but they’re risque photos that said a lot about the actress and was an example of her status as a sex symbol. The same photo shoot of Lindsay Lohan, undertaken 46 years later, had not a single eyelash batted at it. It was a series of photos that were published by almost every internet and print media organization who knew who Lindsay was. It’s also fairly tame considering her reputation.

Isn’t every image art to some degree? Every painting, no matter what it depicts? Every photograph, no matter what it is of? If it’s a girl you know in a mini skirt with her legs spread in front of a car, or a famous photographer taking black and white shots of a model with delicate lighting and creative angles?

Art is what you make of it, it’s not about whether it arouses you, or whether your mum would approve. All art should excite you in some way, be it a childish sense of wonder, getting lost in a sea of colour, or a natural feeling of sexual excitement. Take every visual stimulus you can, and appreciate the art in it all, from a leaf blowing in the wind to a bead of sweat rolling down a chest.