When is it art and when is it porn?

I'm a design student here at Michigan, so I spend a lot of time at the art school. Recently, there were a series of sexually suggestive paintings hung up in the school as part of the senior thesis show. I didn't think anything of it at first, because the school is no stranger to sexually explicit work—I've witnessed a giant 2-dimensional painted vagina (complete with fake fur glued on) and an installation with a wall of vaginas made out of clay. It did make me think, however, of our recent discussion on pornography. When is something art, and when is it porn? Is it important to even make a distinction?

Of course, the porn we've looked at has been in relation to media such television and the Internet. Fine art such as painting and photography may not be as widely viewed as online pornography videos so effects of exposure aren't as much of a consideration, but there's always the argument that a video like this isn't porn, it's "art" (and therefore assumed to be elevated above judgement). There's definitely an attitude that art is okay...but porn is not.

As we read in the Peter & Valkenburg article (and as has been pointed out by many researchers), pornography as a term is both "polarizing" and "emotionally loaded". In many ways, it is understood to be a negative and shameful thing, especially for women. It's defined as sexually explicit material intended to arouse the viewer. So perhaps the difference between "porn" and "art" is the intent... and that's where the line gets blurred.

I came across the story of Leena McCall's "Portrait of Ms Ruby May, Standing" from 2014 while researching how to further define the difference between porn and art. This painting was removed from a London gallery because it was allegedly "disgusting" and "pornographic". The official statement was that the gallery "has a responsibility to its trustees and to the children and vulnerable adults who use its galleries". The painting was removed after several complaints were made. The painting in question was replaced with a "less provocative nude", one where the female model was less sexually aggressive in her stance, with a more passive gaze.

Fine art and painting has a long-standing tradition of nude portraiture. In fact, art students at Michigan are required to do nude figure drawings as part of the introduction drawing class. The arts are not a place where people are shy about the human body. So what's especially interesting and telling to me about this entire story is that in a world where nude figures are so common and accepted, this one particular painting of a sexually forward woman is deemed to be porn, and thus inappropriate for a gallery.

This whole story gets more ridiculous when you consider that the painting was meant to depict "how woman choose to express their sexual identity beyond the male gaze". Oh, and the work was "removed from an all-female exhibition, curated by a woman".

To me, this is essentially just another example of how stigmatized porn and sexually explicit material is for women to create and view. If a woman is fully in control and not ashamed of her sexuality (whether through depictions of her or even just by watching porn), she becomes censored and/or judged. Women are only allowed to be sexual in the presence of men, or for the enjoyment of men.

I'm not sure where my final standing on art vs porn is, but it's clear to me that what we've learned this semester about the the role of men vs. women when it comes to sexual norms and expectancies run deep. These are thoroughly embedded into our media, our culture, and even our attitudes and beliefs.



References:

Peter, J. & Valkenburg, P.M. (2010). Process underlying the effects of adolescents' use of sexually explicit internet material: The role of perceived realism. Communication Research, 37(3), 375-399.

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/jul/07/painting-pornographic-pubic-hair-outrage