I’ve complained a great deal about the way in which all sexually explicit material of any sort is called ‘pornography’. And I’ve often insisted that what I write is not pornography. Because of this, I often worry that I leave my readers with the impression that I am anti-porn. I want to stress, categorically, that this is not the case. However, I think the definition and usage of the word of ‘pornography’ is problematic. We are careless about how we define it and the way we use the word as a blanket term for all sexually explicit material. So, I’d like to start in a very dry way. A definition, please:
pornography, n.
Etymology: < Hellenistic Greek pi (adjective) that writes about prostitutes ( < ancient Greek pi- (see porno- comb. form) + – -graph comb. form) + -y suffix3 (compare -graphy comb. form), perhaps after French pornographie treatise on prostitution (1800), obscene painting (1842), description of obscene matters, obscene publication (1907 or earlier).
1.
a. The explicit description or exhibition of sexual subjects or activity in literature, painting, films, etc., in a manner intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic feelings; printed or visual material containing this. [1. “pornography, n.”. OED Online. December 2011. Oxford University Press. 22 January 2012 <http://www.oed.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/viewdictionaryentry/Entry/148012>.]
This is the OED entry, and definition (a) is the one which most people use. I find the very definition to be problematic because I challenge the distinction between ‘erotic’ and ‘aesthetic’ feelings. Many feelings regarding representations of desire and pleasure are often both erotic and aesthetic. Also, inherent in the definition is an implication that erotic feelings are shallow and aesthetic feelings are deep.
I find it helpful to reach back to the etymology of the word from the ancient Greek porno-graphos: writing about prostitutes. It allows me to draw a broad distinction between the commercial and non-commercial arenas of eroticism. So this is where I’d like to draw my philosophical line. My working definition of pornography is any material – written, photographic, filmic or interactive – that involves the exchange of money for material solely produced to elicit sexual arousal. And, I’d like to include in this any material that attempts to mimic pornography: i.e. certain types of amateur porn in which memes common to commercial pornography are obviously present.
Why do I focus on the ‘commercial’? Am I simply anti-capitalist?
No. Please don’t get me wrong. Sex has always been a commodity. Sexual gratification could always be purchased for a going rate in almost every society throughout history. I don’t, on principle, have anything against it.
However, the involvement of money brings the transaction into the public arena. Money, by its nature, is a public thing. Something that can be purchased for money is a product in the marketplace, and entails the civic and legal attributes that all public affairs do. The minute anything is ‘for sale’ is the moment it begs to be judged on solely economic terms. We can begin to discuss fair market value, value for money, fair exchange. Marketized sex becomes, then, fundamentally quantifiable. If I pay for an hour with a prostitute but do not have an orgasm, I have a right to complain that I did not get what I paid for. If I purchase a porn video but it doesn’t arouse me enough to facilitate masturbation, I can complain that it wasn’t worth the money. Quantification has an interesting effect of decontextualizing whatever is being quantified.
What I find particularly problematic is that so many people have a problem keeping the paradigms straight in their heads.
A prostitute exchanges sexual pleasure (to their client) for money. They get the money, their clients get the pleasure. Porn movies make products to sexually arouse their clients in exchange for money. The actors in porn films get paid. They have sex that is recorded and consumed by others for a fee. Pornographic magazines take pictures of sexually arousing situations and sell copies of the magazine. There is no mutuality of pleasure involved here. There is a transaction of pleasure for money.
It may be in the marketing interests of many types of commercial sex retailers (prostitutes, pornographers, strippers, cam-sex providers, etc.) to pretend that what they are doing involves mutual pleasure (and at times, it even might be true) but the fundamental structure of the transaction an economic one. Otherwise, they would not be in business.
People who have sex together, or get each other off, without the exchange of money are working on a different paradigm. It may indeed be just as transactional – pleasure for pleasure, pleasure for affection, pleasure of admiration – but it is fundamentally private because it doesn’t involve the transfer of capital.
This also means that, because money is not involved, the experience doesn’t naturally devolve into the quantifiable, which means it’s less likely to be decontextualized.
So, although I do write extremely explicit material at times, and there are portions of my writing that are written to be arousing to the reader, it is never pornography. Because I do not write erotic fiction for money.
‘Aha!’ you say, ‘but you sell your books! Your stories appear in anthologies that are for sale!’ This is true enough. My work may end up in an object that can be purchased for money, but its birth was never predicated on the payment of money. I did not write it for the purpose of receiving money for it. No piece of work I have subsequently had published has not first appeared on my blog for free. So, if you’ve been my textual lover by visiting my blog on a semi regular basis, you have had the opportunity to consume everything I’ve ever written, free.
I have stumbled across readers who are so used to seeing their own sexual arousal as transactional, that they leave nasty little comments about how something I wrote didn’t turn them on and they’ve ‘wasted’ their time. They are so used to viewing sex within an economic model, that even a reading experience that is absolutely free must, somehow, represent ‘good value for money’ to them, even when no money is being exchanged.
For a very long time, I’ve tried to understand why I write and post my work. At it’s most basic, it might easily be described as a form literary exhibitionism. I write to be read in the way some women take off their clothes in public for the pleasure of being looked at. But I’m not, by nature, an exhibitionistic person. In fact, quite the opposite: I am essentially voyeuristic.
So, it is a bit more complicated than that. If being read was my only goal and gratification, I could write much more explicit and immediately sexual things. I’d have a far larger readership. Being ‘read’ is not enough for me. I need to feel you are engaging with me over the landscape of the story.
It is rare that I write anything that does not, at its core, have questions attached: why is this erotic to us? How does desire come to constitute our sense of self? How does pleasure/pain become a transcendental experience? Where is the line between rage and lust? The list of questions I am asking in my fiction goes on and on. Sometimes I proffer possible answers, sometimes I don’t. But there is an intense gratification for me in the communion I feel with readers when I know we are both drawn to and perplexed by these questions. It is a type of pleasure I feel. Especially when readers comment.
I see where you are coming from but considering there is so much free porn available online I am a bit confused about your definition.
Is that porn branded? Has it got a logo on it pointing to a paid site? Is it in fact a sample offered as marketing with a view to a sell? Or is it amateur porn with aspirations of being ‘like real porn’? Or is it commercial porn that has been pirated? Why would anyone make professional porn for free? Or do you imagine that the lighting man, the gaffer, the editor, the actors and the director are all doing it out of a desire to selflessly satisfy your erotic needs?
No I don’t.
But often, e.g. on tumblr, porn is shown separate from the original site, with no logos on. I have NO idea who funded it all I know is it is free to me. And I have no idea which porn companies are in operation currently, except for one gay porn co. whose name I only know having read academic articles on it.
I think you are missing something about the nature of the 21st century and how we share material, written or pictoral.
also I write pornography and I make no money. It’s not ‘amateur porn’ it’s for want of a better word, literary pornography.
I don’t see how you can deny it is pornography. You could argue it is so badly done that it fails in the job of pornography but I set out to write and edit pornography.
You may set out to produce whatever you like, and call it whatever you like. And I shall stick to the etymology of the word and the commercial implications inherent in the word’s origin.
I realize that it is the height of politically correct fashion to attempt to reclaim the word pornography as sex-positive because of the historic derision with which it has been used. However, I reject that just because what I write is explicit or arousing that it is pornography, since the motivation behind its creation is not commercial in nature.
You, doubtless, feel I am missing most things, since we hold diametrically opposed positions on so much. However, I’m not unaware or unconsidering of the ‘sharing’ aspect of the internet. But just because you can access it for free, doesn’t mean that the work wasn’t made with profit in mind.
I think you feel the motivation of the making is unimportant, so long as you have free access to it. But for me, the reason for its manufacture is significant and informs the piece itself.
“I have NO idea who funded it all I know is it is free to me.”
That *IS* the fundamental problem with the digital age.
Claiming ignorance is just bad form at this point.
95%+ of what you see on tumblr is commercial. It’s just been reposted (stolen) by the tumblr users.
If there were a system by which your own copyrighted material could be tracked with 100% accuracy, tumblr would cease to exist tomorrow. Along with many other sites.
RG’s article stands up just fine to me. Nothing is invalidated just because the “modern internet user” cannot know where the images came from.
Pornography is something with $$$ involved in the process.
Pornography is probably 95%+ of what you see on the internet.
Nudity/sex/etc. with no money involved is the rare exception in society most of the time.
The question this raises for me is almost a philosophical one: why is money different, categorically, than the other currencies in which writers may be compensated? I, for example (like you), get off on some combination of the fact of my exposing my thoughts (a sort of exhibitionism), on the fact of their being seen (similarly exhibitionistic, if structurally a bit different), on the fact of their being ENJOYED and SOUGHT (this is more like pride), and on the fact of their actually arousing (and this is a combination of proud and arousal in me).
These are currencies to me, more valuable than the pennies my minuscule audience might send me for my doggerel. But it’s currency: I wouldn’t do it but for that.
So what is it about money that is intrinsically different from these other currencies? AND, what is the purpose of the word “pornography.” “Erotica” is nice because it captures an intent: to arouse. “Pornography” is slippery because it is intended to capture two intents: to arouse, and to profit. But because of its connotations, we all are leery of using, or misusing, the word, and eager to come up with some precision in its use.
I’m not sure why the intent of a producer of something (other than crime) much matters. We don’t call chocolates made by Willy Wonka something other than chocolates, simply because he makes them out of love, rather than out of greed. Why would we seek to do that with erotica?
I reason that money is categorically different that certain other currencies because money transactions bring with them civic and legal ramifications. And because money is essentially quantifiable (how much money? $10, $20, etc) and that when something is ‘priced’, it is immediately then also quantifiable. So – to be clear – it is public and quantifiable in nature and all that is valued through money inherits those qualities also.
I think the intention with which something is produced inevitably informs its essence.
Finally, I think the fact that you can equate a literary experience to a something as material and consumable as chocolate does speak to the marketized and commoditized nature of our new economy. Everything becomes ‘product’. I simply reject that everything is product.
This is an interesting and thoughtful analysis, and I think that it probably gets at a large part of the truth. The etymology of the word “pornography” may back you up even more than this post reveals. A quick glance into Liddell and Scott reveals that they it likely think that the etymology of πόρνη itself comes from πέρνημι, a form of a verb meaning to sell.
That said I don’t know if I’m entirely persuaded. My own rough sense is that in everyday usage, “pornography” is used as an expression of hostility and disdain, a label applied to visual or literary represenations that titillate some people (presumably other than the speaker, though obviously there is much room for hypocrisy in social life) that the speaker disapproves of, is disgusted by, or would like to see marginalized or oppressed. Visual or literary represenations that titillate someone and which the speaker does not disapprove of get a different label, like “erotica.”
Now it’s likely that there’s a great deal of overlap between commercialized erotic representations and what people would label pornography, because most people (offically) disapprove commercial sexual transactions: notice how worked up many folks get about prostitution. But I’m not sure the overlap is complete. I’m pretty sure, for example, that there are quite a few people out there who would unhesitatingly label the sort of stuff I publish as “pornography,” notwithstanding the fact that I don’t earn (or intend to earn) a dime off it and am motivated by self-expression and the desire to make friends with other people who are weird in my own peculiar way.
hi RG I am not ‘sex positive’ in the slightest you have misrepresented my views and are being a little bit um ‘teacherish’…
You are producing your own definition of what ‘pornography’ means. Lots of people disagree with you, not just me!
I can find some examples of porn that I KNOW is not produced for profit if you wish.
But more importantly, I write pornography partly because I think it is INCREDIBLY snobbish to define porn as always ‘what other people do, not me’. I am including myself in the mess of sexual culture. You can be above it if you wish.
If I’m a little teacherish, that would be because I am one.
This post IS about my own definition of pornography. That’s what the post is about. Disagree with it. That’s fine. Lot’s of people can disagree with me – that’s also fine. If I was of the opinion that the majority opinion was always right, I’d be a very different person. I wouldn’t write what I write, and I wouldn’t be having this comment exchange with you.
I’m not in the least bit snobbish about porn. If and when I write erotic pieces for money with the sole and specific intent of getting people off, I will very happily call it porn. With pride, if I feel it does what it set out to do.
And you seem to be determined to believe that my desire to differentiate between erotic stimulation produced for money and erotic stimulation produced for other motivations is a sign of snobbery. Good porn is good product. It does exactly what it promises it will do, which is get you off. I have nothing but admiration for any product that does what it says on the box.
You want to say you write porn. Great. Say you write porn. And we will disagree about the definition of what that means. But we are all in the ‘mess’ of sexual culture, QRG, and that doesn’t necessarily require that I must embrace the label of a genre when I find that label overused, underdefined and fundamentally prone to decontexualization. I think the ‘mess’ of sexual culture is a wide and deep one and is not as separate from the rest of culture as many (who use the term pornography for anything that contains explicit sexual imagery, textual or otherwise) would like to believe it is.
yes but you’re not my teacher! we can learn from each other. sometimes you act as if you know best is all.
I accept your comment. we disagree but my pornography IS Pornography because my definition is different to yours. Not because I’m wrong.
Did I at any time suggest that you couldn’t call you produce whatever you wanted to call it? Ever?
And did I not make it clear that this post was about seeking a new definition?
Personally, I find language a bit too unstable and malleable to get into questions of right and wrong. But you’re welcome to be right. Anytime.
“Lots of people disagree with you, not just me!”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
“In logic, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for “appeal to the people”) is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it; which alleges: “If many believe so, it is so.”
“It is sometimes committed when trying to convince a person that unpopular theories are false.”
yes but saying someone ‘can call it pornography if they want’ is suggesting to me that I can call it that, even though I am wrong.
I don’t think there is necessarily a right or wrong here either. Though I think some of the meanings I am getting from your definition seem ‘wrong’ to me. But maybe I have misinterpreted.
You said:
‘So, although I do write extremely explicit material at times, and there are portions of my writing that are written to be arousing to the reader, it is never pornography. Because I do not write erotic fiction for money.’
I assumed you think you are ‘right’ in saying you never write pornography. However, I disagree. I think you do write pornography. If the word only means what every individual wants it to mean, we wouldn’t argue about it!
Your agenda is to validate your own opinion. I reject your definition of my work. I think most of my readers do too.
I don’t have an agenda. I am just debating something I care about and you do too. and speaking on behalf of your readers seems a bit ‘teacherish’ to me!
I am happy to agree to disagree. But if I were to speak for people I would say that all the contributors to Games Perverts PLay, my anthology, that I am very clear is pornography, are happy with that definition. Marc Nash, Penny Goring, Mark Simpson, James Maker, Jonathan Kemp, Dan Holloway, etc etc. I’d love them to join the debate! I will post this on my blog as I think it is an important topic.
QRG, this post proposed an alternate definition to the word ‘pornography’. I asked readers to reexamine the origin of the word, to consider a definition based on whether sex is represented for commercial purposes or other, and whether the sex represented was experiential or remediated, or a hybrid. You are, like any reader, absolutely welcome to reject my redefinition as a load of cobblers.
I have a deep respect for all the people you are listing and their writing. And if they wish to call what they write pornography, then I would never disagree with them. I also think most of them, certainly, Penny, Mark and Dan, would also allow me the right to say that what I write is not. Not because it is ‘better’ or ‘worse’, but because they actually know me quite well, know I am not anti-porn at all, but know that I do use the word in a very particular and specific way. I think we all have a deep sense that we have a right to define our work instead of submitting to someone else’s definition.
I find it disturbing that you don’t honour that right also. That clearly you are not happy to ‘agree to disagree’ but feel the need to call in all your pals to somehow bully me into agreeing with you by dint of numbers.
I feel comfortable in saying with some certainty that the vast majority of readers of my fiction would not classify what I write as pornography. And that people coming to my site, looking for porn, are rather disappointed.
I wish you every success with your anthology.
Thanks. I am happy to agree to disagree. I thought *you* were imposing *your* definition onto me and my work. It was a misunderstanding. And I appreciate getting the chance to think about this stuff via your writing.
QRG, nope. As I said, and meant, about 8 comments ago: I absolutely respect your right to situate your work under whatever genre you feel is right for you.
So, you write for the communion with the readers in the comments section. You are perplexed by the nasty comments. The transaction of mentally stimulating others is your payoff? But since this is not for money, it should not be decontextualized. (yup, that rg girl — always good for 2 boom-booms per 1000 words. ??) Not pornography because of these facts. A veritable standard-bearer for the much maligned, and misunderstood ‘eroticism.’ (Sorry — the fun phrasing of British disdain sometimes rolls out the mind.)
It’s funny, because one could argue that it is a sort of convoluted reverse pornography. (Your idea…) So, you are paying with erotic stories for the non-animal, nay cerebral pleasure of praise, argument, etc in the comments section. But, you are perplexed by the nasty comments. Hey, you paid the story(good money – your valuable time) … now you are decontextualizing… I need praise, argument, not nasty comments or protestations that I’ve wasted your time. I will dis this unfair return on my investment by making a post. I don’t owe you, but you owe me! You’ve wasted my time. It’s not pornography, but eroticism… argument follows. etc., etc.,KK does extra-credit work finds further evidence further proving your argument (yea KK! I bet you pissed of the other kids in section always skewing the curve), QRG picks girl fight (last word wins!) etc., etc. Argh!!! slam, smash.. stomping off… skittering back for favorite purple dingleberry, stomp., stomp., stomp… “Pornography indeed! I am an Erotic Maestro!” stomp, stomp. Where are the other ideas out there? Anyone else have an idea!
Well… you would be a purist and not transactional at if you didn’t give a hoot about anyone’s response. Why bother with response. It was an idea in your head and now it’s out there. You are transactional enough just by living your life however you live it. You don’t need to be transactinal with your stories. Now, that would not be the convoluted reverse pornography.
Ha, ha, ha. Soo much fun! And really, I’m sure you not so dramatic. It’s just if one is going to retell something, might as well make it fun! No sense in being boring.
I like your work. I even like the comments arguments. Your comments are the illucidation of the crux of your story often. I don’t even particularly disagree with your definition. But, like a child I’m arguing here merely to keep the top spinning, so I can see where it goes and admire the pretty colors as it goes around and around. Also, I’ve not oed the decontextualization idea. Sorry, if I haven’t gotten it correct. And really… you wouldn’t storm off and storm back for your purple dingleberry… likely for your laptop, because another idea is brewing.
Thanks for the laughs!
eb
Whoa. Okay, I need to take this slow and piece by piece:
“A veritable standard-bearer for the much maligned, and misunderstood ‘eroticism.’”
I’m not a standard-bearer of anything.
one could argue that it is a sort of convoluted reverse pornography
One could indeed!
So, you are paying with erotic stories for the non-animal, nay cerebral pleasure of praise, argument, etc in the comments section. But, you are perplexed by the nasty comments.
I’m not perplexed by negative comments or disagreement. Nasty comments, yes. Because I can’t figure out what the motivation is for a person. If you really dislike what I write, why are you wasting your time on my site?
Argh!!! slam, smash.. stomping off… skittering back for favorite purple dingleberry, stomp., stomp., stomp… “Pornography indeed! I am an Erotic Maestro!” stomp, stomp.
I’m afraid you lost me here. Is this a characterization of me? What a gloriously surreal and postmodern cartoon character you’ve made of me.
you would be a purist and not transactional at if you didn’t give a hoot about anyone’s response
Did I ever infer that I was a purist or non-transactional? I’m neither. And I am pretty sure I owned to that quite clearly in the post.
But, like a child I’m arguing here merely to keep the top spinning, so I can see where it goes and admire the pretty colors as it goes around and around
Um… okay. I could link you to more colourful sites if you’d like.
And really… you wouldn’t storm off and storm back for your purple dingleberry…
I’m afraid I don’t get the ‘dingleberry’ reference. And, forgive me for saying so, but I’m not going to look it up. I think I can live without it.
Thanks for the laughs!
Please don’t thank me. I think you did most of the work yourself.
So, are you “pw” or “eb”? Or both?
Either way, the text in between the two “names” didn’t really do anything for me.
Except for the part about “illucidation”. That’s a *perfect* name for a new rap CD.
Thanks!
I’ve never considered pornography to be defined by transactions. It’s always seemed like the difference between writing to exclusively arouse, and writing with the intent to provoke ideas. I can see how the two are linked of course, but yes: the money aspect makes a difference. Very interesting to consider it from this point of view. Thanks for the food for thought.
‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
Humpty was logically correct, but his view makes discussion difficult.
Pornography as a word was coined in the 19th century, but it referred to articles and engravings that had been published for over a century beforehand. Pornography was about “celebrity courtesans” and their scandalous lives, starting with the Restoration and King Charles II; though it would be more accurate to call the women his mistresses rather than prostitutes. Nell Gwynn did, however, describe herself as “the protestant whore”. Articles and images were salacious, even vicious caricatures; but at least based on fact, rather than being fictional. Later, pornography also encompassed famous but non-royal whores: even then, “sex sold”.
This form of pornography is still with us — you only have to look at the red tops and their obsession with the antics of slebs, celebrities and footballers.
You’re right to connect today’s fictional pornography and commerce: money is defined by the dismal scientists as “a store of wealth, a measure of wealth and a medium of transaction”. But I don’t think that money is what distinguishes pornography from erotica, the etymology notwithstanding. (It is splendidly ironic, though, that so many porn stars are also escorts.)
Rather I’d say it was the difference between “reality” and “unreality”. Both tend to arouse, both are designed to arouse, but pornography does this through scenes and descriptions which belong to fantasy land; it is “unreal”, imaginable but impossible. Erotica is something that is “real”, the events depicted could happen, the descriptions are “literary” and realistic rather than fantastical.
Insightful. Either way, whether something is pornography based on the intent to sell, or is entertainment based on an intent to entertain, or is academic based on the intent to prove how incredibly valuable a person is to society, at the end of the day pornography is the product produced by pornographers.
According to Rand’s Francisco, the current age is turning on producers making the Money aspect of the transaction the byword. So it is no longer the pornography, but the money that is becoming dirty. . . but that is another rant. If Rand is right, better not to be a pornographer in our modern age not because of the product, but because the (evil) transaction required for the definition.
But lets assume for argument sake that RG is fully compensated for every word she wrote and nothing was available online for free (as a side note, the intent of the computer revolution is argued at large by a society that demonstrates when governments try to limit pirating while making an icon of Steve Jobs. Jobs seduced us by aesthetically manipulating what others saw as the freedom of the proletariat to have information, only to form the biggest prostitution rings on the planet…) I’d still argue that her work is not pornography because she is not a pornographer.
What pornographer invites a forum on the meaning of our sexuality as expressed through deviancy, pain, and isolation? I would bet that she gets off on the forum as much as she does (more than?) writing stories, because I think this is the meaning to her. She is an educator, not a pornographer.
Would she be disappointed to know that I listen to her when I am running or cycling, and all the stimulation I get is psychological, pressing questions of identity, and relationship of myself to the world? What better lens than human sexuality to dig into the gutter of our existence and drudge up the really cool questions? So to someone looking to be stimulated in ways no pornographer would ever dream of, he naturally finds RG: A sexual anthropologist with the mind of a psychology professor expressing herself as an artist. Keeping the brain going in pursuit of the charged questions of our existence requires something unique, which naturally isolates. But while the majority of the world is anxious to get to their next orgasm, pornographers will gladly show the way. Meanwhile, confusing as they may seem, I’m glad there are a few people left who are more interested in revealing who we are instead, profit or no.
MH
“I would bet that she gets off on the forum as much as she does (more than?) writing stories”
*grin*
Thank you. That was an excellent orgasm you just gave me.
*smirk*
Likewise!
I think the question of intent is problematic. I see what you’re saying in terms of ‘artistic’ (my word) versus commercial intent. Artists throughout history have received money for their works, many of which have been on commission, but they have (or at least we assume they have) been driven not by the desire for money but by the inspiration and the urge to create.
But what if a piece of pornography (using your definition) is shot beautifully, or the actors are so good at their jobs I’m convinced they’re real lesbians for once? Would it not have the same artistic merit as something created by one such as you with ‘artistic’ intent? (Conversely, there’s plenty of awful erotica out there that wasn’t produced for money.) Intent clearly doesn’t color technical merit, so what exactly does it color?
If we don’t use the term as a value judgment, and if we don’t separate erotica and pornography by saying the former is conceptual while the latter is only explicitly sexual (and I have trouble with this definition as well) then I really can’t see the distinction.
I’m honestly starting to think we should call all depictions of sex acts depictions of sex acts and let them speak for themselves.
(I’ve been trying to avoid obsessing over every little thing I write, so I apologize if any glaringly bad writing got through.)
You wrote: “But what if a piece of pornography (using your definition) is shot beautifully, or the actors are so good at their jobs I’m convinced they’re real lesbians for once? Would it not have the same artistic merit as something created by one such as you with ‘artistic’ intent?”
Ah, okay. This is a whoah! moment. The one thing I am not discussing in this post is ‘artistic merit’. Because of course, as you say, there are things produced for commercial purposes that have great artistic merit, and much that is produced by ‘amateurs’ (for love of the creation) that have no artistic merit at all. And also because our understanding of ‘artistic merit’ is subjective and very much driven by prevailing fashions and aesthetics.
I also think that, as you said, ‘intent’ is very hard to grapple with. Intent can change. Circumstance can change intent.
Ontologically, I felt the easiest way to make a distinction was to draw the line was at a commercial one, because something produced for the purpose of commercial gain becomes ‘priceable’ and therefore quantifiable.
This is something of a headfuck, so bear with me. Money (coinage, dollar bills) is an economic abstraction. A dollar bill in itself is just a piece of paper – you can set it alight. (On another planet, its actual value would depend on how much the alien race wanted paper). Its value in our society is a socially agreed upon construction of what may be bought for that dollar. So, two pencils for a dollar. 10 sticks of gum for a dollar. Basically, it’s a brilliant mechanism that allows for us to compare apples to oranges. (2 apples = 1 dollar = 3 oranges). Are you with me?
Notice that the moment I start trying to explain this, I’m using numbers. 2 apples, 3 oranges, 1 dollar? If you can count something, it’s quantifiable. What something counts for (because there is deflation and inflation) is a public issue, dependent on the item’s valuation in the marketplace at a given time and place. This quantification is a very public thing – the price of something may be determined by a)its availability or scarcity (if apples are out of season, they’re more expensive), b) economic policy (governments sometimes set the level of the cost of things or manipulate the market in order to control it c) its perceived intrinsic value at a given time (people will pay more for an iPhone than for a Nokia because at the moment, iPhones seem more trendy).
If something is freely given, it isn’t quantifiable. In essence, it’s worth 0, but in actual fact, it is worth however much the person who has privately thinks it is worth. It isn’t affected by all the rules and social constraints that apply to goods sold for a fixed price. It’s rarity or ubiquity don’t matter to the marketplace. It is not affected by governmental economic policy.
I realize this is getting long, but can you see how… the minute something has a ‘price’ in the marketplace, it is considerably changed? Not in its artistic merit, but in the way we conceive of its valuation?
Yes, I understand that, though your comment made it even clearer for me. I suppose (perhaps because I’m so used to hearing the term used as a value judgment) I just don’t see the use of making a distinction between erotica and pornography in this manner. I am quite happy you brought it up though, because I’ve never really thought about the way monetization affects the way we think about things before.
I would argue that there is more subtlety to the matter than simply intent. To use the example of an art gallery, the person who buys a particular piece may evaluate it based on its cost, but the other people attending won’t because they have either been freely admitted or haven’t payed to view that piece in particular. This probably won’t apply as much to pornography as other things, hell it may only apply to art galleries, but there it is.
You bring up an interesting example in the art gallery. A commercial gallery, where there is a price on the piece would hold with my model, because you can admire while window shopping, but you still know the piece has a price. However, the metaphor does indeed break down for people going to a public art gallery, where the work is not for sale. Hmmm. Must thing about that one.
I have a high appreciation for the way you express yourself.
It provokes thought, but more importantly it provokes feeling and
I cherish it.