Art Vs. Pornography

One of the great mysteries in life is when does art become pornography, and when is pornography art?

I think before we can even discuss this we have to look at what the Dictionary.com definition is for both art and pornography.

Here is the one for Art: the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance; the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria; works of art collectively, as paintings, sculptures, or drawings. 

Here is the one for Pornography: obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, especially those having little or no artistic merit.

People have a bad habit of calling works of art pornography just because the drawing, painting, photograph, or sculpture happens to show penis, vagina, breasts, or buttocks.  They are not looking at the full scope of what the artwork is meant to represent.  In layman’s terms, pornography is meant to be sexually arousing, something to get off too, while art is meant to take in not only the subject of the work, but the surroundings as well.  Art is meant to tell a story, while pornography is meant to get you off.

Go into any art museum and I guarantee you will see more that one painting or sculpture that depicts a nude man, woman, or child, and nobody is calling that pornography.  Go to Europe and there are plenty of statues out in the public that depict nudity in artistic fashion.  One of my favorites is the Boy with a Frog (Link to Pictures of it on Google) that use to be in Venice, Italy.  It was removed May 9, 2013 and replaced with a street lamp.  HERE is the story about it’s removal that makes it seem like it had nothing to do with the fact that it was a naked preteen boy.  But as the story says, the statue did have it’s detractors.  It doesn’t make mention of the reason, but since the kid is naked, that is probably at the top of the list.

White Statue of Boy With Frog

Photo by: Todd Heisler/New York Times

But to me here is where it becomes art.  Take a look a the location: He is on a point, surrounded by water.  And what kid doesn’t like hunting for frogs?  I did when I was about that age or so.  I just wasn’t eight feet tall.  And what about his nudity?  The body is not something to be ashamed of.  Young, old, man, woman, slim, or obese.  Remember that according to the Bible (OK) that Adam and Eve were walking around for quite a while buck naked and perfectly fine with it.  It was only after the eating from the tree did they realize that they were naked.  [And by the way, if God is supposed to be this All Knowing entity how come he had to ASK Adam if he had eaten from tree? [Genesis 3:11] And He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?”]

Now here is another work of art that is nude: David by MICHELANGELO.  Nobody is calling this porn!

Statue of David by MICHELANGELO

It seems to me that the only time that things get classified as pornography is when they are photographs.  And yes, when you troll online there are plenty, and I mean PLENTY of websites and do nothing but feature pornography.  I’ll let you just Google the word porn on the images side and you’ll know what I mean.  But so now that I’ve given a few examples of how nudity with statues isn’t considered porn, now let’s take a look at a couple of photographs:

Boy Outdoors With Dog

This photo, like the statue of the boy and David is not meant to be sexually erotic.  It is supposed to showcase the naked naked body in natural surroundings.  It is a photograph that makes you think:  What is he looking at?  What is he pondering?  It is almost like the statue of The Thinker by Auguste Rodin, which is a nude as well by the way.  Yes, the photographer took the shot as a full frontal nude.  But now think if this was a statue sitting on a pedestal and made 300 years ago, would we call it art or pornography?

Out in Nature

Here is the second picture that I wanted to show.  Here is boy standing in pose in a natural setting.  What if this was turned into a sculpture and placed on the point where the Boy With Frog stood?  Would we call it art, or would we call it pornography?  And what if the men in the photographs had been the age of the Boy With Frog?  People would be screaming child pornography, the Boy With Frog stood there for four years.  It is people that do not have the appreciation for the naked body who will see every naked body as porn.  Hell if you would ever catch them at a nude beach!  Heaven’s there are naked men, women, and children all over at those places.

Yes, there is a very very fine line between art and pornography.  And each person is subject to his or her own opinion.  If the work is tasteful, and is done in a way to showcase not only the body but the surroundings, then I would consider it a work of art.  If the work is meant for the viewer to get aroused, and focuses entirely on just the body, then I would consider it pornography.  But there are also photographs that showcase just the body, with no surroundings that I would still consider art.

But from what I can see from what I read, see online, or at museums, is that the world is getting more and more uptight about the naked body.  There is nothing to be ashamed of.  Yes, there are people out there that will see a great artwork and get off on it.  Nothing we can do about those people.  But I think there are more people who know, or want to know, how to admire the body like it was intended to.

And before I go on this one, just two more photographs of statues and how weird some people can be, and believe:

Boy With Golden Penis – Prague Castle

This is an artwork at the Prague Castle in the Czech Republic.  It is supposed to give you good luck if you rub him where it counts.  Hence the fact that the statue is dark, but his penis and scrotum are shiny bronze.

Naked Angel Crying – Island of Tears, Minsk, Belarus

On the island of Tears in Minsk, Belarus is this statue of a crying angel.  It is said that brides come to the island on the wedding day to rub the angels penis to be bless the marriage with fertility and a male son.

So artwork verses pornography?  It really comes down to how you view the subject.  If a photograph was a statue would you consider it art?  If a statue was a live person would you consider it pornography?  It’s a fine line for sure.  But as an appreciator of the human body I hope that there is a lot of great artwork yet to come.

Love to you all!

~Ryan

EDIT: I found this picture about a half hour after the original post and really gets to jist of what I was trying to say.

There was no credits on the original post that I found.

These two are almost identical.  Are they both art?  Are they both Pornography?  Or is one art and one pornography?  To me they are both art.