pornography, in creativity and mediocrity

Cass, hello. I agree with you. The focus in porn movies from soft to hard to *underground* is utilitarian. There is a clear goal, which is to cause a physical response on the part of the viewer.

The below is not meant specifically as criticism of Msr.Newnham, but I do wish to question a common premise in debates of pornography: that sexual arousal is a subintellectual matter and that pornography bypasses the human mind. As I hope I have made clear, I am in this no more sanctioning the mediocre majority of the pornography industry by this statement than the position that architecture, business, or art are the creatures of the mind is to defend the status quo in architecture, commerce, or the fine arts.

If Rand is right, and sexuality is essentially a response to *values*, and here I wholly agree with Rand, then it follows that all sexual arousal is an evocation of the values of the subject; 'no plot' pornography thus falls in precisely in the class of 'pure action' movies or 'shoot 'em up' video games or James Bond, primitive and simplistic, yes, attractive on a rudimentary level but not a sub-aesthetic level. I think Rand was totally right to treat sexuality as such as an spiritual issue; she is actually following a long European intellectual tradition whereby desire is a form of the mind's grasp of an object's beauty according to its education and sensibility ('metaphysical value judgement' is apt). If this is true, then there are no mindless physical urges; a physical body may determine the means of the apprehension of value, but sexual desire is not more 'produced' by hormones or sexual organs that vision is 'produced' by the eyes or the brain.

A consequence is that we should not look at pornography as utilitarian in essence and therefore essentially not itself art, because a body or image able to evoke sexual desire does so according to an essentially artistic process. Pornography is no more itself utilitarian than slow music played in a shopping mall to encourage shoppers to relax and tarry (and enrich the shop-owners). In both case the utilitarian purposes pass through a nexus of values. Now, some level of aesthetic value may be broadly appreciated by any untrained mind; most people can be aroused erotically via some form of 'no plot', simple pornography, just as most people can enjoy the latest action movie or chick flick in cinema; what are touched in all cases are simple, basic, almost rudimentary emotions. But in all cases the ability to reach emotions depends on a (crude) artistic base. That human beings are configured so that sexuality is the perspective and mode of apprehending value in a certain sense does not change the objectivity of the delights of sensuality any more than the delights of the eyes or ears.

In this, so far, I agree wholly with Rand's principles; the implication of Rand's theory of sexuality is that all of the principles of artistic valuation apply to sexual valuation; Rand stresses in both cases that emotions are a response to values. Where I disagree is my judgement that Rand makes a colossal leap from the valuable and radical (if precedented), inspiring notion that sexual desire is a response to value to the position that sexual desire exists only in relation to one's *ideal* value. Secondly, she further simply assumes that the ideal value involved in sexuality must be romantic love (i.e., sexual friendship), which translates into the view that friendship is the only serious value in which human relations that can be sexual in authenticity. The first view is simply a Platonic ideal reduced to moderate realism; the second view is utterly unsustainable in my own experience, those of dozens of friends and colleagues, or my readings in Pagan eroticism (I'm on Ovid, currently).

With regard to the last paragraph, I mean to post a link to some previous writings on sex work that detail my premises on the subject; I'm aware that the above is an explication and not a defense. Unfortunately, the original essay is long even by Mistress Ring's standards, and I don't know how I'd condense such a complex and controversial issue.

my regards,

Jeanine Ring ))(*)(( - "not all those who wander are lost"

Post 21

Sunday, November 14, 2004 - 1:17pm

Jeanine, I've read your post twice, but I have to say I simply don't understand the point you wish to make. Would you try again -- and present it more simply?

Mme. Branden-

Very well, my apologies. And I do intend to answer your criticisms on the other thread regarding polyamory.

Essentially, what I meant to say clearly in my earlier post was:

i) An erotic cinema portraying explicit sexuality in the context of romantic love would be a wonderful thing.

ii) However, my endorsement of sexual cinema qua romantic love as a higher philosophically objective value does not mean that I would say that the only high type of sexual cinema, or of sexual value in general, involves love or romance.

iii) In my view, the notion that are only two types or at least polarities of sex, 'causal sex' with minimal passion, and romantic love, in false.

iv) My view is that sexuality is a mode or kind of desire by which many values can be approached. Friendship is one of them; 'romantic love' is the conjunction of the admiration for another person and sexuality at the same time at the same respect.

v) This romantic love is one of the heights to which sexuality should be taken and deserves all of the praises the poets have bestowed, but it is not the only kind of spiritually substantive sexual value. One can also sexually experience other aspects of life or sexually value human beings in ways other than their spiritual character.

vi) Our concept and intuition of romantic love as the only significant or at least the undoubted height of sexual emotion is culturally limited. If there are other ways to experience the kind of ecstacies of spiritualized sexuality that romantic love makes possible, then romantic love is not the summum bonum of sexuality, but one of a plurality of heights to which sexuality can be taken. I add here that the most obvious of these is sexuality practised in an artistic mode.

I go into the details of my theories in the prostitution piece that began my return to my past in the Objectivist world; I suspect you have read this, but in case and in general, the url is http://groups.yahoo.com/group/atlantis_II/message/11805; I discuss my objections to elements of Rand's theory of sexual desire beginning at (do a 'find in page'):Now let me turn to what. Apologies in advance for a few winces of spelling sloppiness(

).

P.S. What is 'Last Tango in Paris'? It seems something with which I should become familiar.

my regards, and apologies for any unclarities,

Jeanine Ring ))(*)((
stand forth!

Post 22

Sunday, November 14, 2004 - 2:07pm

A few of Jeanine's comments:

the implication of Rand's theory of sexuality is that all of the principles of artistic valuation apply to sexual valuation;

An erotic cinema portraying explicit sexuality in the context of romantic love would be a wonderful thing.

I add here that the most obvious of these is sexuality practised in an artistic mode.

Hi Jeanine,

You always write interesting and complex pieces coupled with your interest in aesthetics makes them compelling.

Adamantly, I differ in opinion about the artistic nature of pornography or sex. I do not have a problem with either of them, and have experienced both unconnected to romantic love.

The problem with pornography as art is on a fundamental level�when one sees a movie of people explicitly fucking that is what they are really doing; it is not a �re-creation�, not make-believe, not a dramatization. A movie about a bank robbery is literally a make-believe robbery, not the real thing. The real thing is would be a documentary. Documentaries are about real events and people. Pornography is essentially a documentary on sex. One may use artistic skill but pornography can not breach the divide to qualify as art. At least by what I know about art.

Regarding sex, I think there are �skill� levels and I could say �craft� about it. But equating it with fine art again misses the point that having sex is having sex it is not a stylized performance that conveys a coupling without actually doing so; as soon as it crosses that line it would cease to be art.

Michael

(Edited by Newberry on 11/14, 2:09pm)

Post 23

Sunday, November 14, 2004 - 3:22pm

Msr. Newberry-

If what you mean is that erotic cinema should not just remain a videotaped sex act (which can in principle be very stylized in setup, but has inherent limitations), but should construct the experience selectively by multiple cuts, takes, camera angles, careful use of music and timing, etc., with all of the power and methods of modern cinema, and contextualize that scene to provide an aesthetic unity, as necessary, then I would agree. Modern pornography usually shares all of the artlessness of a home video. But that says nothing about pornography as a concept; only of our times.

Let me remind you, however, that by your criteria, acting on stage is not art, since it is really happening in front of your eyes; storytelling, which is interactive, is not art, and would be much nightclub singing or stage comedy. Is Saturday Night Live art?

Assuming these constitute a a reductio, there is absolutely no reason why sexual performance cannot aspire to be done theatrically; of course, some modern drama, such as Tony Kushner's Angels in America, comes quite close. So would many forms of erotic dancing if sexuality were not prescribed by law.

It is not essential to the definition of art that art is 'make believe' and not reality; this sounds truly Platonic. What is essential is that art is a selective recreation of that reality. Art is a specified type or special case of reality; the degree to which that art is also ordinary reality varies with the context, with a painting, perhaps, at one extreme and dance at the other. There is no difference between defining art as nonreal ('make-believe') than in defining theory as nonpractice.

Why can sex not be a stylized performance? Are you familiar with the ritual rhythms and slow crescendo of breath and sexual motion used in Tantra? Or the art of precise movement, character, and personality involved in the more rigourous dominatrix today? Or in the films of feminist pornographers such as Candida Royalle? How would sex scenes in modern cinema change in their status as art if they were fully explicit, with the actors actually having full sex is one way or another (assuming this hasn't already happened)? Why could a geisha not have sex with all of the art of economy and motion as she practices in companionship?

The degree on styling would vary depending on the context; for instance, obviously one can do more with a film than with a live stage, at the price of much immediacy.

Consider that out entire concept of art is derived primarily from tragic drama or theatre in Aristotle's Poetics, and that this form of art evolved by degrees from religious ancestors of this practice are the sacred prostitution practices of the ancient Near East (which were also practiced in Hellenes; Corinth, Massillia, and especially Cyprus were centers of Hellenic temple prostitution... though my impression is that these later classical cases were less and less concerned with art as the ancient world matured towards our Medieval one).

As for the view that actual, immediate presence cannot be art, consider Rand on dance... I unfortunately lack a library, but she essentially praised dance as a translation of the intellectual motion of music to the real-time existence of physical movement itself (I wish I hate the reference, alas... I invite corrections from the bibliophilically-able).

Additionally, architecture is also an art form which inescapably serves an immediate purpose and utility; that is no bar to integrating it with selective creation. The same is true with sexual performance; the physical immediateness of a sexual act is no more an aesthetic or intellectual problem that the physical immediacy of the Empire State Building, a very utilitarian structure indeed.

Perhaps you conflate pornography as it is practised now with pornography as a logical concept, according to what it might be and ought to be? Perhaps not, but I note that this is just as disastrous ascribing to 'capitalism' the characteristics of today's mercantilist corporatism.

Erotic art is today an unknown ideal.

my regards,

Jeanine Ring ))(*)((

Incidentally, when I want to use art for sexual pleasure, I do not use videos but music; specifically a left-tinted rave tape in synch with my own natural rhythms. Since, as everyone knows, the beat of modern rock music is essentially sexual, even that might be a blurred line.

Post 24

Sunday, November 14, 2004 - 4:37pm

Hi Jeanine,

You did not understand my point.

Michael

Post 25

Sunday, November 14, 2004 - 5:52pm

You did not understand my point.

Msr. Newberry-

'Tis of course possible I substantially misunderstood, and if so, I apologize. Would you please then clarify?

regards,

Jeanine ))(*)((

P.S. I had planned to add this note anyway: pornography should not immediately make us think of cinema; clearly there is pornographic photography, painting, and dance, and I suspect the same of most if not all art forms.

(Edited by Jeanine Ring on 11/14, 5:54pm)

Post 26

Sunday, November 14, 2004 - 7:26pm

Hamlet. Hamlet the actor is not the real Hamlet. Ofelia the actress does not die�ect. They are acting parts.

�It is not essential to the definition of art that art is 'make believe' and not reality; this sounds truly Platonic.�

I mentioned �make believe� because I get bored stating a �re-creation of reality�, but, no, an essential aspect of art is that it is not literally real, a painting of a chair is not a chair but color pigment that represents a chair; actors are not really King Henry; the feeling of flight walking out onto a cantilevered balcony is not literally flight. The Kiss by Rodin is not real people embracing but cold stone formed to expresses his view of significance.

If you do not �get� my meaning here�hmm, I guess is for you to try to think outside the box.

�Consider that out entire concept of art is derived primarily from tragic drama or theatre in Aristotle's Poetics��

Ah, spoken like an intellectual. That statement doesn�t account for all the pre-Greek art in every culture nor for cultures that are don�t have western influence or for all the children, nor for how many artists� function, few �derive� from theory, but rather project their inner and perceptive experiences�personally, I view �influences� as rather fun, idiosyncratic, and non-essential.

Perhaps it is helpful if I state that actors fucking on stage or screen is pornography

but the subject of fucking in a painting no matter how explicit would be art as it is literally paint.

Michael

Post 27

Monday, November 15, 2004 - 3:11am

Jeanine, you asked what is "The Last Tango In Paris." It's a movie starring Marlon Brando, directed by Bertolucci, and released in 1972 with an X rating. It was described as "an erotic tour de force." It created considerable controversy when it was released, but I believe it was later rereleased with an R rating.

I'll answer your post more fully as soon as I have time.

Barbara

Post 28

Monday, November 15, 2004 - 6:04am

Perhaps it is helpful if I state that actors fucking on stage or screen is pornography

but the subject of fucking in a painting no matter how explicit would be art as it is literally paint.

What about dance? What does it recreate? A person dancing is, literally, a person dancing, which really isn't representative of anything beyond the literal motion of the dance.

Post 29

Monday, November 15, 2004 - 6:56am

The purpose of pornography is to cause sexual arousal. That *by itself* does not come remotely close to what Rand meant when she spoke of our sexuality being a response to values.

No amount of mental gymnastics will make porn as a category/genre, anything other than what it is. And as an industry it doesnt need defending, or justification, because its success (as a business) is in the billions. But it is what it is. And nothing more.

John

Post 30

Monday, November 15, 2004 - 8:48am

The purpose of pornography is to cause sexual arousal. That *by itself* does not come remotely close to what Rand meant when she spoke of our sexuality being a response to values.

Rand did not say sexuality should be a response to values; She said sexuality is a response to values. If this is so, it follows that any image or experience which does sexually arouse does so by evoking value, on however rudimentary a level. The issue is precisely similar to music which is not meant to do anything but alter someone's mood; this is an instrumental use of music, but it is made possible only because of the music's power to cause response to value.

And for myself, I am not defending, with a few atypical exceptions, today's pornography industry; I titled this thread precisely in awareness that today's pornography is actually mostly mediocre. I am in fact attacking today's pornography industry for its mediocrity and thus making the dismissal of pornography itself plausible. This underscores my point that we must judge by the logic of a concept and not by its history.

Once could very easily look at the utilitarian boxes that are modernity's excuse for architecture and conclude that it is ridiculous to define architecture as an art, since most actual architects are aiming for nothing but utilitarian purpose at least as badly as most pornographers. But this is blaming the victim; 'tis not architecture, but today's architects who should be shamed; and it is precisely because of this that architecture would need all the more defending.

my regards,

Jeanine Ring ))(*)((

Post 31

Monday, November 15, 2004 - 9:07am

Exactly so John. In one. Well said
Cass

Post 32

Monday, November 15, 2004 - 12:59pm

Jeanine, I think you are arguing with Michael about something he hasn't said. You say, if I understand you, that pornography can be artistic; he is saying that pornography is not art.

Michael, you said: "But equating it with fine art again misses the point that having sex is having sex it is not a stylized performance that conveys a coupling without actually doing so."

I agree with your point, but I need some clarification. And I don't mean to nitpick. Do you mean that a film that included a sex scene could be art if the final act of intercourse were only simulated? If it were convincingly simulated, I think that still would be considered pornography, would it not? What about screen kisses? They are real kisses, although the accompanying emotion may be simulated. Does that disqualify what is often the climax (no double-meaning intended) of a love scene?

Barbara

Post 33

Monday, November 15, 2004 - 2:54pm

Enjoyed your input Barbara.

You asked: �Do you mean that a film that included a sex scene could be art if the final act of intercourse were only simulated? If it were convincingly simulated, I think that still would be considered pornography, would it not? What about screen kisses? They are real kisses, although the accompanying emotion may be simulated. Does that disqualify what is often the climax (no double-meaning intended) of a love scene?�

Part of the discussion here might be due to individual interpretation of pornography and eroticism. I draw the line at explicit sexual engagement of real people in photos or film. One perspective is to think about yourself being one of the actors. What do you feel comfortable doing that does not conflict with your private life? How could a director ask an actor to engage in sex? What about the actor�s life, family, mate? Don�t you reserve your sexual organs for a lover? Kissing is a lot less provocative we see and do it all the time in public, I don�t see it as being explicitly sex�though it can sure feel like flying through the universe!

But then we come back to the conceptual nature of art and how it is not a literal transcription of life. I am not sure that I am the one to convince anyone about it but I am interested in others� most moving experiences in art, how they think that happens, and how they compare that to reality.

Michael

(Edited by Newberry on 11/15, 2:57pm)

Post 34

Tuesday, November 16, 2004 - 11:18am

Barbara wrote: ...if I understand you, that pornography can be artistic; he is saying that pornography is not art.

I would agree a 100% with that but I don't think that is what Jeanine is meaning...

Michael

Post 35

Tuesday, November 16, 2004 - 11:31am

Perhaps it is helpful if I state that actors fucking on stage or screen is pornography

but the subject of fucking in a painting no matter how explicit would be art as it is literally paint.

Nature wrote: What about dance? What does it recreate? A person dancing is, literally, a person dancing, which really isn't representative of anything beyond the literal motion of the dance.

I am not sure how your comment relates to my earlier comment...

I think the dancer's body is a medium to physically embody the content of music--that is a conceptual jump: what would music look like expressed by a person's movement; a dancer translates the music through their body...its hard to see how one could translate music literally...every dancer would interpretation selectively...

I think Rand does an excellent job discussing this in Romantic Manifesto.

Michael

Post 36

Tuesday, November 16, 2004 - 2:12pm

Michael wrote,
"The problem with pornography as art is on a fundamental level�when one sees a movie of people explicitly fucking that is what they are really doing; it is not a �re-creation�, not make-believe, not a dramatization. A movie about a bank robbery is literally a make believe robbery, not the real thing. The real thing is would be a documentary. Documentaries are about real events and people. Pornography is essentially a documentary on sex. One may use artistic skill but pornography can not breach the divide to qualify as art. At least by what I know about art.

"Regarding sex, I think there are �skill� levels and I could say �craft� about it. But equating it with fine art again misses the point that having sex is having sex it is not a stylized performance that conveys a coupling without actually doing so; as soon as it crosses that line it would cease to be art."

Michael,
Does the same apply to films about, say, dining, in which the actors actually dine (Babette's Feast comes to mind)? It seems that by your standard, if actors are explicitly eating and enjoying real food, apparently the film becomes a mere documentary about a meal. Would you say that "Equating it with fine art again misses the point that feasting is feasting, it is not a stylized performance that conveys feasting without actually doing so; as soon as it crosses that line it would cease to be art"? Or would you recognize the fact that simply because the actors "are really doing" what they appear to be doing does not make the dramatization any less of a dramatization?

Best,
J
(Edited by Jonathan on 11/16, 2:44pm)

Post 37

Tuesday, November 16, 2004 - 5:01pm

Does the same apply to films about, say, dining, in which the actors actually dine (Babette's Feast comes to mind)? It seems that by your standard, if actors are explicitly eating and enjoying real food, apparently the film becomes a mere documentary about a meal. Would you say that "Equating it with fine art again misses the point that feasting is feasting, it is not a stylized performance that conveys feasting without actually doing so; as soon as it crosses that line it would cease to be art"? Or would you recognize the fact that simply because the actors "are really doing" what they appear to be doing does not make the dramatization any less of a dramatization?

Hey Jonathan,

ha ha, I don't know if I am from another planet or what--apparently some of you see my point...

Michael

Post 38

Tuesday, November 16, 2004 - 6:27pm

Michael,
If your point had been that you, personally, don't like certain sexual content in films, then I'd be fine with it. Who isn't revolted by one thing or another? But your point seems to be that very explicit sex scenes, unlike any other type of scene, can't be a recreation of reality -- that they can't be staged and choreographed, and that the actors involved can't pretend to be feeling and expressing emotions that, in reality, they may not be feeling. If that's what you believe, then, yes, you may be from another planet.

Actors can ~act~ like they enjoy something, whether it's eating food, having sex, listening to music, or anything else, while ~actually~ doing it, and can even enjoy it while they're acting like they enjoy it. They can expand on what they would normally express, and play a role -- recreate reality -- for the camera, audience or each other. And such a recreation of reality doesn't stop being a recreation of reality merely because you, personally, are uncomfortable with its sexual content.

Is it verboten in Objectivist circles to simply say "I don't like it" instead of "It can't, under any circumstances, be art"?

Best,
J

Post 39

Tuesday, November 16, 2004 - 8:21pm