The Definition of Pornography and its Alignment with Definitions of Art
Callie Williamson
PHI 2510: Philosophy of Art
April 18, 2022
When philosophers discuss the existence of pornography in relation to art, much of the skepticism about whether or not porn can be art is related to porn’s ethical value. Lots of pornography certainly has questionable ethic value, especially that which depicts violence and subjugation of women. It is also worth questioning whether or not it is even possible, never mind if it is ethical, to attempt to examine pornography for artistic value outside of ethic value. Still, I am curious as to whether philosophers would come to a different conclusion about porn and art if the ethical question was set aside. As the feminist movement addresses porn and “feminist porn” starts to remove some of the ethical red flags in porn, it behooves philosophers to address the question, “Would feminist porn be art?” To answer this, I believe that we must start by separating current pornography from its ethical challenges and investigating it as a possible art form, free of judgement, stigma, and sticky morals.
To attempt to define pornography without making a moral judgement would mean taking historical and current definitions and distilling them to describe what porn is, not what porn is like or what porn means. Many proposed definitions of pornography cause conflicts where there are none by means of confusion and miscommunication. Because of this, it is important to clarify which definition of pornography I will be referring to in this essay, if I am using any current ones. If not, it is important to clarify my own definition.
At the most complex and most ethically-concerned, “pornography is recognized as a practice of civil inequality on the basis of gender” (Dworkin & MacKinnon, 1989, 31). Naturally, this is an incomplete definition, as it does not attempt to describe how to identify pornography. Nevertheless, this definition by prominent feminist voices on the topic sheds a light on what, to them, is the most important part of pornography. This definition implies that the most important part of pornography is, in fact, the ethical concern. Another definition which highlights the ethical concern is this: “pornography is sexually explicit material designed to produce sexual arousal in consumers that is bad in a certain way” (West, 2012). This definition can be observed in many discussions, given that when sexually explicit content is not bad in some way, it is not called porn at all, but instead called erotica. This appears to be a common definition and aligns with many of pornography’s connotations and subsequent judgements against it. However, I do not think that a piece of content has to have explicitly harmful content in order to be called pornography. After all, by this definition, “feminist” porn without harm to women would not even be porn.
On the other end of the spectrum, pornography has been defined as all sexually explicit content (West, 2012). The phrase “sexually explicit” is vague, as different cultures and times have different definitions of what is sexually explicit and what is not. This definition is too subjective and broad for effective use – we would have to accept all definitions of what is sexually explicit, which would make anatomical images in medical texts technically pornography, when it is fair to say that they are not (West, 2012). My working definition of pornography needs to be specific, but many existing specific definitions introduce value judgements and negative connotations. Even the phrase “sexually explicit” has negative connotations of breaking taboos or showing what ought to be censored.
For the sake of questioning whether or not porn is art, it is important to remove value judgements such as “bad” from the definition. The artworld is not concerned with the moral goodness or badness of a piece of art, at least not in terms of its inclusion. The Birth of a Nation is art, despite its morally objectionable content. Of course, it might also be bad at being art, but it is still art even though it is morally bad. I am not concerned with whether or not pornography is good art, nor am I concerned with whether or not pornography is good. I am just concerned with whether or not pornography is art. For that reason, I will be working with a value-free, but specific, definition of pornography: pornography is a media portrayal, either in written words, images, or audio, of sex or sexual content for the sole and discrete purpose of sexual arousal and pleasure for the viewer.
The next step in determining if porn is art, after defining porn, is to define art. This in itself is a major challenge in the philosophical world, so for this paper, I will attempt to decide on a relatively concise and clear definition of criteria to which I can compare pornography. Historical definitions of art are typically simpler, but they are also more easily challenged because of their simplicity. For example, the representational, expressive, and formalist definitions can all be refuted by examples of things with representational, expressive, or formal qualities that are not art (Adajian, 2018). Contemporary definitions tend to be more specific and fall into several categories: institutional, historical, functional, and hybrid definitions (Adajian, 2018).
Institutional definitions of art place emphasis on the work’s acceptance into some social institution, typically a defined “artworld” (Danto, 1964, 580). The artworld includes physical institutions, like galleries and museums, as well as social institutions, like guilds, and economic institutions, like auctions and the art trade. However, institutional inclusion is not infallible, like in the case of Henry Darger, a man who never attempted to have himself or his work be accepted into artworld institutions, and whom the artworld considers an “outsider,” whose work is nevertheless often considered to be art (Yu, 2004). Artworld institutions can also make decisions about works that the general public finds controversial, like in the case of Jackson Pollock’s drip paintings. Much of the general public disagrees that these works count as art, while others and the artworld laud him for talent and passion (Woodard, 2008). Institutional definitions are important to artists, especially because institutional inclusion allows creators to financially survive off of their art, but solely institutional definitions are simplistic and one-sided. Institutional definitions ignore artist intent, any qualities of the works themselves, and any viewer opinion from outside of the institutions. A broader approach is needed.
Historical definitions hold that for a work to be considered art, it must have some relation to previous artworks or art movements. The artwork must bear some sort of resemblance, in form, medium, style, etc, to preexisting works of art. These preexisting works of art are classified as such because of some resemblance to even earlier art, or because they are regarded as either inherently art or they are an extremely early form, like paleolithic cave paintings or the seven wonders of the ancient world. Historical definitions often receive similar criticism to institutional definitions, in that they rely on art institutions and traditions without addressing what makes those traditions count as art. Historical definitions also receive criticism on the account that art from sources that have not been previously considered, such as alien, natural, or “outsider” art, cannot be defined as art (Adajian, 2018). Additionally, it is reasonable to assume that there have been works of art in the past, likely from non-Western cultures, that were not classified as art. Therefore, current works that draw on those works could also not be classified as art. Pornography could, potentially, fall under this criticism, since it is not typically considered to be art within institutions or in historical definitions, which could prevent it from being considered art now.
Functional definitions of art are mostly concerned with aesthetics. Generally, art is considered to rely heavily on aesthetics, but it is important to note that philosophers differentiate artistic qualities from purely aesthetic ones, because art is not just aesthetics (Adajian, 2018). If art were purely aesthetic in nature, the definition would be simple. Anything with interesting aesthetic properties, including everyday objects and natural occurrences, would be art, and artworks that seemingly lack aesthetic attention would not be art. Still, examining art for aesthetic quality has value, since most study of art is concerned with analyzing aesthetics. Generally, a work should have aesthetic qualities that it was intentionally given. Aesthetic definitions are both broad and exclusive, with Lia Jianhua’s Blank Paper likely not being art, but a manicured lawn of grass could be.
For my purposes, I will define art as an expression and interpretation of real life, not necessarily imitative, that can be identified by a combination of creator intent to make art, creator intent for the art to achieve some combination of goals (expression, elicit an emotion, further a political cause, etc), inclusion in artworld institutions, and viewer opinions. None of these factors can make something a piece of art on its own, nor do I think all of them are necessary at once, but some combination of the three ensure that a variety of works can be labeled art. This is partially an institutional definition, but it also has significant subjective components which reduce the elitism and economic strangulation of purely institutional definitions. I will use these criteria to assess whether or not porn can qualify as art.
Pornography is an aestheticization of a facet of real life, not unlike lots of art. Pornography’s representation of sex is sometimes imitative, often a fantasy, and occasionally a mostly accurate documentation of real-life sex. It is creative and expressive, but somewhat limited in terms of its content and goals. While a conventional artist’s goal of creation might be to express some feeling, or just to make art, a pornographer’s goal of creation is always first to elicit sexual arousal in the viewer. Any creative expression is a secondary goal. It may be possible for a person to create sexual content that is primarily meant for creative expression, and any sexual arousal in the viewer is secondary, but by my definition, this type of content is not pornography. This type of content is art that is pornographic in nature, but it is not pornography. Pornography must be intended to elicit sexual arousal and bring pleasure to the viewer.
It is possible to argue for classifying pornography as art because some pornography creators may consider themselves to be artists. They may consider their creations to be art. In many definitions of art, creator intent is among the most important criteria. If a creator intends something to be art, who gets to say that they are mistaken? If a creator cannot decide if they have made art or not, then nobody can. A writer might have written erotica and called it porn, or written porn and called it erotica. A video creator may have filmed something that some might call porn, but may actually fall under a classification of art. This distinction comes up in personal sexually explicit content, particularly taking nude self-portraits. While many people take nudes to sexually arouse partners or potential partners, others take them purely as a form of self-expression and self-love. Seeing these images may motivate some to call them pornography, but while they may be sexually explicit, sexual arousal is not always the intent of the photographer. The photographer may be engaging in artistic expression by curating their aesthetic appearance to match some creative ideal in their mind. In cases where display to others is not the intent of creation, even the most sexually explicit content is not porn. It is art. Nudes, taken with the intent to arouse other people, even an individual partner, have a much stronger case for being classified as porn instead of art.
Another example of misclassified art is revenge porn. The nonconsensual distribution of nude photographs or videos of sex, often called “revenge porn,” is misnamed. Revenge porn can take the form of leaking nudes, secretly sharing videos between friends, or uploading sex tapes that were intended to be private to public pornography websites. Often, the content in revenge porn was not made for distribution or for anyone else to see. Sometimes the content has been shared with a partner, intending to cause sexual arousal, in which case it is correctly named pornography. But when the content is stolen off of a personal device and distributed without consent, that content is usually art, which makes the action not revenge porn, but instead a case of stolen art.
What makes the piece pornography or art is not whether the creator intended to make art, it’s what the original creator intended the piece to do. A person may create self-expressive content, meant to sexually arouse, for a political cause, like for women’s liberation. Alternatively, a person may create expressive sexual content meant to elicit additional emotional responses. Art is created for a variety of purposes, and often a combination of them. Porn, for lack of better phrasing, is just sex.
To further distinguish the difference between pornography and art that is pornographic, consider some examples. A movie with a sex scene is art with pornographic content, but a fanfiction of the same movie meant solely for reader sexual arousal is porn, even if it has some storytelling elements (consider the creator-assigned fanfiction tags “Porn With Plot” vs. “Porn Without Plot”). An audio recording of a sexual encounter meant to be listened to for sexual arousal is porn, while a song that describes sexual activities and includes moans or other sounds typically associated with sex in order to enhance the music’s aesthetic qualities is not porn. A comic mainly including sexual content could be porn or art, depending on whether the comic is just made to arouse, or if there are also other goals.
Pornography, for all its complexities, is simple. Pornography only relates to sex. Once a piece of media ventures into other goals, it enters the realms of erotica and pornographic art. Porn does not have to be harmful to be porn, but it must not be for political purposes or primarily creative in nature, else it is no longer porn. Art is significantly more complicated to define and rarely has an individual purpose, especially not one outside of the creator. Pornography has very few of the qualities of art, and if a piece of sexual content does possess qualities of art, then it is most likely not porngraphy at all.
Bibliography
Adajian, Thomas. “The Definition of Art.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University, August 14, 2018. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2022/entries/art-definition/.
Danto, Arthur. “The Artworld.” The Journal of Philosophy 61, no. 19 (October 15, 1964): 571–84.
Dworkin, Andrea, and Catharine A. MacKinnon. “Pornography and Civil Rights” and “The Ordinance.” Essay. In Pornography and Civil Rights a New Day for Women's Equality, 24–35. Minneapolis, MN: Organizing Against Pornography, 1989.
West, Caroline. “Pornography and Censorship.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University, October 1, 2012. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2021/entries/pornography-censorship/.
Woodard, Rob. “Pollock: Genius or Charlatan?” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, February 19, 2008. https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/artblog/2008/feb/19/pollockgeniusorcharlatan.
Yu, Jessica. In the Realms of the Unreal. United States of America: Mongrel Media, 2004. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRlvDKcDvsI.
Comments