Pornography and the academic world
The academic world seems to think that pornography is too unrefined, too raw, basic, instinctive, too primary and not rational enough for “men and women of letters”. What they fail to see, however, is that any form of art, any format of art as cultural manifestation has per passed pornography at some point in history, be it writing, sculpture, dancing, painting, cinema, music. Yet, pornography is erased from all art forms that involves nudity and sex the minute the academic world requires justification to allow it in: think of Rubens, and his naked chubby ladies, and how we are immediately taught that it is not about nudity and sex, but about female body adoration; Michelangelo’s David and the denial there is any sexual intention in the portrayal of the masculine body, the work being justified as a semi-mathematical ode to human form and proportion; Rodin’s Kiss being deployed of sexual content, explained as belonging to a realm which goes beyond the physical one, at some point even sublimating his relationship to Camille Claudel by restricting it exclusively to the artistic realm. By eliminating pornography from art pieces it becomes acceptable to observe it, to debate it, to enjoy it, because an art which would aim at sexually arousing people is immediately regarded as less valid than arts which appeal to less carnal senses.
Carnal relationships are understood as being less noble than love, spiritual, or even intellectual ones. However, what signifies a relationship that belongs exclusively to one of those spheres to one person, for another might blur boundaries and penetrate more than one of those territories, this way working in double reference and functioning as sexually arousing at the same time that it holds some other significance. For these people – to whom sex and sexual desire are intrinsically connected to other less “mundane” aspects, such as relational skills, intellect, or even religious experiences – to dichotomize sexual arousal from other interests becomes impossible. For these same people, however, the secondary aspect of the artistic intention works as a solvent to the pornographic tone of the artistic matter, if so they wish, and they are able to justify the sexuality in their art under the scope of other sciences.
Sexual art, on the other hand, holds its place inside the academic world as a matter to be approached only under the lenses of other disciplines: sociology, psychology, history, all disciplines can be asked to harbor pornographic art under their scope, if this means securing the place of those works inside the academic debate. Therefore, photographs by Nan Goldin, for example, are constantly justified as being an account of contemporary sexuality, often being taken only as registers of the sexual atmosphere of a certain time and place. Di Cavalcanti’s mulatas are supposed to represent an emerging Brazilian culture, which intentionally promotes the Brazilian woman as a means of reinforcing a national identity. Dash Snow’s “F*** the Police” should represent the ever going clash between power and sex. And, if everything else fails, the naturalist argument that “there is nothing wrong with flesh” comes into action, as to eliminate any underlying meaning of sexual provocation. It is as if the idea of sex or nudity as a sexual arousing tool tinted any art piece, draining its artistic value and relegating it to a category of intentionality that does not comply with that which is expected from the ”fine arts”. After all, art’s objectives should tangent exclusively spiritual elevation, and never, ever inflict body reactions to its observers – or at least not physical reactions which would remind them or their own condition as irrational, impulsive, instinctive animals.
In a Platonic concept of ideal world, where arts is a threat permanently confronted with the necessity to be censored and regulated in order to formulate good citizens – remember, Plato proposed sending poets and playwrights out of his ideal Republic – the state’s interference in artistic endeavors would work more like a tool to eliminate or belittle the power of the arts to influence, and potentially to corrupt. In a Foucauldian analysis of all "neoliberal governmentality" and the institution of inner-regulatory strategies, aligned with the standardization and normatisation of sexuality, sexual acts, expectations, and what is acceptable to desire, would function as a much more solid regulatory tool. In other words, it is by installing a regulatory apparel inside each active citizen that a system is able to secure that any threat is immediately eliminated by the same subjects it intends to corrupt. Therefore, to perpetrate ideas of what is “normal” or “healthy” sexuality and, at the same time, to impose locale in which the expression of sexual desire should be delivered is a way to make sure that people would reprimand any form of artistic expression which does not comply with said rules.
The academic world, therefore, presents itself as a perfect space for the categorization and dissection of erotic and pornographic art, embedded in pseudo-intellectual pre-concepts of what is art and what only mediates social discourse. It is about time the academic community worldwide understands that pornography is as a valid form of art as any other, and the fact it emerges so instinctively to all societies should, alone, advocate for the need of facing pornographic artistic expressions as valid and subject to deep intellectual analysis. Without, I beg, over extending it to find hooks where to peg more moral issues in order to hide it from the faint-hearted.
- Published August 28, 2012