Pornography, Art and Porno-Art

Abstract

Much of the porn-or-art debate has tended to turn on sexual arousal. Pornography is said to have the function or intention to sexually arouse its audience, while art does not. Sexual arousal need not be the sole intent of pornography; but it is considered to be its central or ultimate intent. In the current debate, this is seen as ‘the big stumbling block for any artistic redemption of pornography’ (Maes 2011b: 392); and the view that pornography is ‘centrally aimed at sexual arousal’, which is taken to be a necessary condition of pornography, is one that ‘almost all theorists’ agree with (Maes 2011a: 60). The following are some representative samples. Jerrold Levinson (who takes pornography and art to be mutually exclusive) claims that pornography has ‘a paramount aim’ of ‘the sexual satisfaction of the viewer’ and that pornography’s ‘central aim [is] to facilitate sexual arousal in the name of sexual release’ (2005: 229, 236). Further, pornography involves ‘images intended to sexually arouse in the interests of sexual release’ (ibid.: 230). Christy Mag Uidhir, who also endorses an exclusivist view, holds that ‘a necessary condition for something’s being pornography is the purpose of sexual arousal — [sexually arousing its audience is] what pornography does and what it is supposed to do’ (2009: 195).² Even Matthew Kieran, who criticizes Levinson’s view, takes pornography as such to seek ‘via the explicit representation of sexual behaviour and attributes, to elicit sexual arousal or desire’ (2001: 32).

Many thanks to Hans Maes for his helpful comments while writing this chapter. I am also grateful to the participants of the Aesthetics, Art and Pornography Conference, held in London in June 2011.