Art & Porn
filed in Drawing & Fine Art, Media: Photography on Feb.11, 2006
We were discussing in the comments over at J-Wild’s blog that there are fundamental differences between nakedness in fine art and nudity in pornography and I felt this topic should be granted some more thought on my part.
Most humans who have grown up in countries that have an appreciation for the arts have been exposed to nakedness in art since they were born. From Da Vinci’s Vitruvian Man, Michelangelo’s Statue of David, and Botticelli’s The Birth of Venus, we have been seeing human nakedness in printed form since almost birth.
I suppose an easy question for non-artists to ask is, “How come the naked body is so common in both traditional and contemporary fine art?”
My answer is ANATOMY.
Artists have learned over the centuries that in order to depict a subject well, they need to study it. If you drew an apple without looking at one it would not be as accurate as if you had an apple in front of you while you drawing. The same goes for depicting figures of human beings in art. The human body is among the most fluid, ever-changing forms in the world. By studying the naked human form, you learn volumes about anatomy. Not only how the body looks, but how the body works and moves. I spent many, many hours drawing live, nude models while at Pratt. We even took field trips to Columbia Medical School to sit around a human cadaver to discuss, study, and draw flesh, muscle and bone structure. Da Vinci, among others, would rob graves so he could study the human form. There is simply no better way to become proficient at depicting the human form unless you study it from life (or death…).
A sampling of my sketches from live models
The human form is vital information for an artist. And not just Renessaince painters, sculptors and other artists of realism, but for illustrators, animators and even video game designers. Only after studying anatomy can we confidently exaggerate features for humor or effect. Case in point – Charlie Brown’s enormous head, or the original 1959 Barbie Doll’s perfectly impossible figure.
It is estimated that if Barbie were 5 foot 6 instead of 11 1/2 inches tall, her measurements would be 39-21-33. An academic expert once calculated that a woman’s likelihood of being shaped like Barbie was less than 1 in 100,000.
As humans, we have a sixth sense about what looks right and what looks wrong. We, as artists, need to get it right.
So when did the shift to depicting the nude body as sensual and erotic enter the picture? I’m not sure I know for certain, but my guess would be that this darker side of the human body has been around since the beginning. I’m guessing that it only hit mainstream with the birth of photography – which provided instant and VERY realistic satisfaction.
But, what makes THIS depiction of a nude woman “art” and another “erotic?”
I believe the answer is soley INTENTION. But “intent” goes both ways and I believe both are relevant.
If the intention of the artist is to create something erotic, than it becomes dually art and pornography (I’m using “pornography” and “erotic” as the same thing. I’m sure we could dissect the subtle differences of each, but for my purposes I am declaring them to be synonymous.). And I say “dually” because photography, filmography, drawing, painting, etc are undeniably all forms of art. I think in a lot of instances pornography can still be considered art – but in the last 40 years or so I think it has become much less art and much more business. Similarly, if the intention of the viewer is to view the naked form as something pornographic/erotic, than they will cease to view it as a piece of art.
I think the main difference between nudity in fine art and nudity in pornography is the intention of the artist and the intention of the viewer. We’ve all heard stories of the pre-teen boys flipping through the National Geographic Magazine looking for the topless African women, because finding his Dad’s Playboy Magazines was much riskier. The intention of the boy was to view something erotic, yet eroticism was not the intention of the photographer or publisher. Indeed, I doubt any of us would ever place National Geographic Magazine in the same company with Penthouse and Hustler.
Alright, I’ve blabbed on enough. I want to hear what you think.
February 13th, 2006 on 2:47 pm
First of all, I thought I had heard that if Barbie was enlarged by the same ratio she is now, that she would topple over in real life (especially w/ those feet in a permanent high heeled position).
Second of all, I completely agree with the concept that it has to do with both the artists’ and viewers’ intentions and contexts that makes it art or pornography (i.e. acceptable or unacceptable from my point of view).
Also, I’m a bit creeped out by Da Vinci sketching a corpse by candlelight…and though I can’t condone grave robbery, I suppose it was the only way to “study” the body back then.
My question is: how do we fight those who oppose what we consider art as pornography or pornography as art since it comes from their intention and/or contextual perception?
February 13th, 2006 on 3:01 pm
I don’t think you do fight them. It brings the entire censorship debate into light. What if someone paints a portrait of a nude woman in a seductive position and claim it is fine art, yet mother’s sheild their son’s eyes from looking at it because it is too graphic? Can it be admitted into a museum where the public has full access to it, or should it be censored from the public?
February 14th, 2006 on 7:44 am
Thanks for this Kenny…I can no longer read your blog at work.
February 14th, 2006 on 10:46 am
To ammend to my last comment… I am in no way implying that those who are offended by the photo are wrong. I just don’t want to hop on the bandwagon of outrage without knowing the artist intent.
February 14th, 2006 on 10:49 am
What last comment?
February 14th, 2006 on 10:56 am
Wierd. My last comment has “Your comment is awaiting moderation” after is. It displays on my Mac but not my PC, hmmmm. Anyway, here it is again…
——
Perhaps the nude form became taboo around the same time it became a marketing tool. Acceptance or opposition to nudity also depends on the society and mindset of the times. It’s not as taboo in Europe, but it always raises eyebrows in the U.S. I don’t think it’s possible to happily marry artist intention and viewer interpretation. We all have different ways of filtering information and those filters are difficult to break down.
In reference to the magazine cover that triggered this discussion; I know it was taken my Annie Leibovitz (sp?), who is a very successful and well-respected photographer (and a woman). I can’t imagine she would intend to objectify or degrade women. I also can’t criticize a piece without knowing the intent and the vision behind it. Was the intent to portray the subservience of man over woman? I’m not sure it was. Tom Ford (the man in the photo) is a famous fashion designer (Gucci, I think). One could also argue that his body language conveys an admiration for the female form. Afterall, as a fashion designer, isn’t the human body HIS canvas?
February 14th, 2006 on 9:52 pm
DigiGirl – I would think most who subscribe to some form of the Judeo-Christian faiths believe that nudity became taboo after Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge. Long before marketing ever existed.
I don’t think it is about marrying the individual intentions of the artist and viewer. I think they act independently most of the time.
Yeah, Annie Liebovitz (yeah, you spelled it right) is an awesome photographer, yet she is still a photographer who is hired. She does not art direct 100% of her shoots. In fact, in this case Tom Ford art directed the shoot. I applaud your optimism, but I can’t agree that this cover was ever a good idea. I’ll even take a ride with you on your hypothesis that as an artist himself, Tom Ford was displaying his blank canvases (nude females) to generate the imagination of the viewer, I still can’t condone it. But then again, I’ve never been a big fan of shock art. There’s no point to it.
February 15th, 2006 on 5:09 pm
True. Eve did contribute to our view of nudity as taboo. Growing up Catholic, I thought the same. Being educated as an artist and art historian, I came to view the human for in a different light. Sometimes nudity is sexual, sometimes it’s art.
In reference to “marrying artist intention with viewer interpretation”. Yes, they do act independently. What I meant to convey is that regardless of what the artist intends to convey, or what his/her vision is, there will always be someone who interprets is differently. I can paint an vase of flowers and tell you it’s flowers until i’m blue in the face. There is bound to be someone who will see the “flowers” and interpret it as a fertility symbol, or find a phallic symbol hidden in the compostition, or say it’s a manifestation of my anger towards my father, etc. Am I making sense?
I would also assume that someone like Annie, who is at the top of her field and perhaps one of the most sought-after photographers in recent times, wouldn’t have to take a job she didn’t want, or didn’t agree with. When you reach a certain point in your career, you have those luxuries.
I’m still curious if Ford of Liebovitz have released an artists statement. Or if, as artists, they’re just happy that their work has drawn such attention.
So what is it, specifically, about the photo that you can’t condone? If the models were in exactly the same pose, but with bikini’s on, would it be less offensive and controversial? I’m not disagreeing with your point of view, i’m just interested in your detailed perspective.
February 16th, 2006 on 10:50 am
First, let me apologize that it takes so long for your comments to appear on the blog. For some reason they go into my “awaiting moderation” queue… which is something I rarely check.
I’m sure Ford and Leibovitz are just enjoying seeing their name all over the internet.
What is it specifically I don’t condone? I guess it is me not liking shock art (art for no other purpose but to ellicit a response – positive or negative or both) mixed with my opinion that the objectification of women in media (especially magazine covers) has gotten WAY out of hand.
And you’re more than welcome to disagree with my POV. It’s mine. It doesn’t have to be everybodys. 🙂
February 23rd, 2006 on 3:31 pm
Mmmm.
What the rest of the world cannot understand is that in the US you can carry a hand gun that kills and yet cannot see a bare breast. weird.