In class last Friday, we discussed pornography, and debated if it could be construed as art, obscenity, or something in between. Between that discussion, as well as the over-the-top amount of pornography in The Filth, I tried to determine what pornography was, and if obscenity and pornography were synonymous.
Today during Nanotext's office hours, located in the Crack of the Humanities building, Nano brought up the notion of the banality inherent to obscenity. The more I thought about it, the more this seemed a perfect way to examine the issue.
Pornography is, if nothing else banal. Considering pornographic movies, one who views this media can be guaranteed horrible acting and a ludicrous storyline. Furthermore, if one knows the genre of the film, they can, without a doubt be sure of knowing exactly how the story will end. It is this complete lack of originality which ensures the obscene. These films are most definitely not art, as there is nothing to be gained from watching them. The predictable visceral response from the intended audience verifies this.
However, it feels irresponsible to imagine that nothing can be gained from viewing pornographic films. The inherent outlandish nature creates an unitentional parody of itself which is not by any means worthless. Obscenity then, should not be determined by the government, which would of course use useless standards and in the process endanger 'valid' forms of art. Besides, using the definition of banality to determine obscenity would immediately encompass other genres outside of pornography such as the tear-jerker romantic comedy or the horror film. Obviously these genres are generally a bit less generic than pornography, yet the expected visceral action is the same, and the ending, especially in the case of the romantic comedy, is obvious from the get-go.
Why then, is there all the fuss over pornography? Obviously in the case of minor exploitation it is quite rational. Just as in many other industries, there are dangers posed by the occupation which most would agree deems it fit only for adults. However for enfranchised and willing adults, it is safe to assume that the occupation is far less dangerous than working in a coal mine, or a saw mill. By far most criticisms of pornography are on moral grounds. A film only becomes obscene when it assumes the hackneyed 'storyline' of all of its predecessors, the way a romantic comedy or horror film does.
In fact it may be safe to assume that pornography is really the least dangerous of the three, as only pornograpahy makes little effort to hide this banality, obscene though it may be.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
What no mention of the jumparounds? I agree with what you are working through here. But is it that porn actually illustrates the banality of the sex act completely? In other words does the system of porn (and I think this--following Barthes in the development of his System of Fashion--might be a useful frame from which to examine porn) that to contextualize the sex act within this system as scandalous reinvigorates the sex act by the process of falsely tearing it from its own banality and placing it within another.
ReplyDeleteI also think that your inquiry needs to look to types of porn (fetish [although that is a vast grouping as well], mind control, ect.) for the ways in which this connects to The Filth and also for how it provides insight into the idea of porn as a system of signs.
I liked your comparison between romantic comedy, horror films, and pornography. I agree that pornography is less dangerous because it has open intentions.
ReplyDeleteI am curious about your rationalization for why you don't consider pornography art. It indeed has obvious conclusions. But Shakespeare plays do as well. Even though we know the majority of central characters will die, we still read Shakespeare since the developments that lead to their death are fascinating and unique. Likewise, even though ejaculation would seem to be the conclusion to the majority of pornography movies, the processes that occur before the climax can be unique and artistically interesting.
"French Artist Marcel Duchamp's Fountain, a 1917 porcerlain urinal, has been voted the most influential artwork of the 20th century, in a poll of Britain's art world."
ReplyDeleteArt has taken form in everything-it has served purposes through all of our carbon dated history. It pushes our limits. Relocating the balance with a different sense of sure footing with a broader encompassing.
My intention of art is to expand a perspective; see a focus of attention that is new. It is too easy to enjoy porn as art. It is the fifty cent turn crank toy dispenser-And the world can't get enough. It does not take you much to stimulate your reptilian brain reproductive function.
Organized morals are lost with science-there is nothing else to unite a consciousness left but the Darwinian body, that is us.
"The body's condition lies solely in your interpretation as a function. Functions are part of being since they arise from it, but the relationship is not reciprocal." ACIM
Art inspires that what is beyond. A fringe. Porn is a step towards the body as a means. "Art" that stimulates a mental evolutionary step towards reproduction being our true goal. Both of my grandmas thinks that and popped out eight kids each. What future does that project in a world in its current state? Sex as art should be used for a step beyond what is, instead of turning us back to a body of self.