Pornography
From Seenoevil
Contents |
What is Pornography?
Wikipedia offers this definition:
Pornography (from Greek πόρνη (porni) "prostitute" and γραφή (grafi) "writing") (more informally referred to as porn or porno) is the representation of the human body or sexual activity with the goal of sexual arousal. "The explicit artistic depiction of men and/or women as sexual beings."[1]
But the shortness of the word 'porn' shouldn't allow us to forget its long and complex history:
1857, "description of prostitutes," from Fr. pornographie, from Gk. pornographos "(one) writing of prostitutes," from porne "prostitute," originally "bought, purchased" (with an original notion, probably of "female slave sold for prostitution;" related to pernanai "to sell," from PIE root per- "to traffic in, to sell," cf. L. pretium "price") + graphein "to write." Originally used of classical art and writing; application to modern examples began 1880s. Main modern meaning "salacious writing or pictures" represents a slight shift from the etymology, though classical depictions of prostitution usually had this quality. Pornographer is earliest form of the word, attested from 1850.[2]
Government Definition
The law states "An image is “pornographic” if it is of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal." [3]
The definition offered raises two obvious questions, despite its brevity:
- Does pornography really 'arouse' (rather than satisfy) sexual desire?
- Why should pornography be defined by the 'purposes' of a producer, when the law is targetted at consumers?
The Government consultation response document [4] does not attempt to expand or clarify the definition but both documents do list various genres which are not to be considered pornographic:
"medical or scientific material, educational, artistic, mainstream broadcast entertainment or news footage"[Consultation, Paragraph 37]
"photographs of works of art, news and documentary programmes by mainstream broadcasters which are of public interest and works classified by the BBFC (other than those classified R18 for sale only in licensed sex shops".[Response, paragraph 9]
These negative definitions are seriously impoverished given the historical and philosophical difficulties that people have experienced in defining pornography.
It is also unclear on what basis the jury would have to decide whether an image was produced for sexual arousal - for example, would this be judged on the image alone, or would they be allowed to take into account the website it came from, or knowledge of the producer's motives?
It is worth noting that some definitions of pornography specify it as "sexually explicit" as well as intending to sexually arouse [5]. Therefore the proposed definition is very broad, intending to catch any image which a jury believes was intended to arouse, whether or not the image shows an explicit sexual act.
Whilst BBFC classified works are explicitly exempted in the law, an extract from a classified work is not exempt, if "it is of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been extracted (whether with or without other images) solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal."
History of a genre
The definition of what one considers obscene can differ among persons, cultures and eras. This leaves legal actions by those who oppose pornography open to wide interpretation.
See this link for a review of a genre study placing the origins of pornography in its social and historical context: The Invention of Pornography: Obscenity and the Origins of Modernity, 1500-1800 by Lynn Hunt.
Channel 4 has produced a television series on the subject. This is an excerpt from the introduction to the accompanying book: Pornography: The Secret History of Civilisation
See also Art
Films
Contemporary film makers who explore the boundaries between art and pornography may be affected by these proposals.
Pornography vs. Erotica
Pornography may be defined as similar to, but distinct from, erotica, though the two terms are often used interchangeably.
In general, "erotica" refers to portrayals of sexually arousing material that is (or aspires to) be art or has historical merit, whereas "pornography" often connotes the prurient depiction of sexual acts, with little or no artistic value that may be harmful to view. The line between "erotica" and the more pejorative term "pornography" is often highly subjective.
According to some interpretations, the definition of pornography is as much (or more) to do with the viewer's motive and response, as with the actual material, content or creator's intention. [6]
See this link for a discussion on the distinction between erotica and pornography, from the programme 'Philosophy Talk' on San Francisco's KALW (91.7 FM).
Barthes on Pornography and Erotica
The critic Roland Barthes has tried to distinguish between erotica and pornography, taking as an example a self-portrait by Richard Mapplethorpe. He acknowledges that though the difference is, in principle, simple, in practice (like the difference between a good photograph and a bad one), it may come down to "luck".
The presence (the dynamics) of this blind field is, I believe, what distinguishes the erotic photograph from the pornographic photograph. Pornography ordinarily represents the sexual organs, making them a motionless object (a fetish), flattered like an idol that does not leave its niche; for me there is no punctum in the pornographic image; at most, it amuses me (and even then, boredom follows quickly). The erotic photograph, on the contrary (and this is its very condition), does not make the sexual organs its central object; it may very well not show them at all; it takes the spectator outside its frame, and it is there that I animate this photograph and it animates me. The punctum, then, is a kind of subtle beyond – as if the image launched desire beyond what it permits us to see: not only towards “the rest” of the nakedness, but towards the absolute excellence of a being, body and soul together. This boy with his arm outstretched, his radiant smile, though his beauty is in no way academic, and though he is halfway out of the frame, incarnates a kind of blissful eroticism; this photograph leads me to distinguish the “heavy” desire of pornography from the “light” (good) desire of eroticism; after all, this is perhaps a question of “luck”: the photographer has caught the boy’s hand (the boy is Mapplethorpe himself, I believe) at just the right degree of openness, the right density of abandonment: a few millimetres more or less and the divined body would no longer have been offered with benevolence (the pornographic body shows itself, it does not give itself, there is no generosity in it): the photographer has found the right moment, the kairos of desire.
Taken from: Camera Lucida: Reflections on Photography by Roland Barthes (1980)
Punctum: a point (latin)
Kairos: (καιρός) an ancient Greek word meaning the "right or opportune moment". The ancient Greeks had two words for time, ‘’chronos’’ and ‘’kairos’’. While the former refers to chronological or sequential time, the latter signifies "a time in between", a moment of undetermined period of time in which "something" special happens. What the special something is depends on who is using the word. While ‘’chronos’’ is quantitative, ‘’kairos’’ has a qualitative nature.[7]
For more on Spirituality, see Art: Christian Iconography
