Pornography; "Elevations"

 

      Pornography is a safe topic to discuss in mixed company. It is safe because pornography is always what other people watch, never us.
      Pornography, in most cases, is a legal product to consume and while its producers and retailers claim a right to do so under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, pornography is generally restricted by local obscenity ordinances.
      Local management of pornography retailers is usually accomplished with municipal ordinances which have no effect on the internet where most pornography is viewed and bought.
      In a special report in 2009 titled, Porn 2.0, the cable news station, MSNBC, examined the state of commercial pornography today. According to key producers of pornography, they are falling victim to pirating of their products and are not making as much money as they used to earn. This, from a business model perspective, is interesting since the pornography business has always enjoyed holding the most profitable business on the world wide web.
      That may be good news for the high-minded moralists who, of course, don’t consume pornography and don’t want anyone else to consume it either, but, according to the industry, the main threat is anyone with a digital video camera can produce pornography. The big thing in the porn business is the amateur product which has been making its presence known on social websites such as MySpace, Face Book, and YouTube.
      Amateur pornography is usually free which is shaking up the overall business model for non-pornography concerns. It is perhaps this, not content, which has many web based businesses concerned. Making a profit is no longer dependent upon the product and price but what another business interest will pay to have their logo on a website with a high number of visits.
      These issues avoid full understanding without establishing what pornography is, and, by extension what it is not. The legal interpretation of the term ‘pornography’ is graphic representations of sexual acts which have as its sole purpose to elicit sexual behavior by the viewer.
      That’s a mouthful.
      Imagery which contains nudity and may be offensive to many often does not meet the ‘sole purpose’ criteria for it to be deemed pornography. If it did, many women’s fashion magazines, as well as National Geographic, would fall into the pornography pit. To shock, offend, provoke, and so forth, is one of the many goals of the fine arts and Rush Limbaugh neither of which would be characterized as pornography.
      The commercial pornography industry, recognizing its products were becoming a part of cultural mainstream, redefined its corpus and implicit negative connotations by calling itself the ‘adult entertainment’ industry complete with its own version of the academy awards. This was probably a prudent decision since the word ‘pornography’ and its meaning only dates back to the 1850’s in America during the evangelical, fundamentalist religious movements of that period. As language and social perspectives change, so do acceptance and tolerances.
      Hollywood keeps its distance from pornography, officially. However, the films produced and distributed by the major studios (independents as well) are subject to rating. Those ratings, in regards to nudity, sexual acts, and so forth, use pornography as an abstract boundary which distinguishes a PG-13 from an R and an R from a X. In the old rating system, Midnight Cowboy was the only X-rated film to win an academy award.
      Hollywood’s connection to the pornography industry has another link. Many a UCLA film student who is currently working in the mainstream film industry financed his or her education and subsequent creative ventures by producing pornography. Many film students drop out of school because of the lucrative profits to be had in porn.
      The same is not true for actors. To appear in a porn film is pretty much as far as those careers go. It is worthy of mention that anyone in a porn film is called a ‘porn star,’ not an ‘extra’ or even a ‘supporting actor or actress’ simply because it isn’t acting; it’s more of a documentation.
      As a ‘documentary’ absent of any resemblance of plot beyond the obvious, porn videos usually have a duration not exceeding twenty minutes using extremely low camera point of view. The purpose of this format is obvious and if it isn’t then no one is in danger of going blind.
      The social debate about pornography is not unlike pornography itself; it gets nowhere, changes no one’s position, and has predictable endings. Sexually explicit images date back to the ancient Greeks and further which is not, in itself, an argument for the continued existence of pornography in present day contexts, but provides an understanding it is natural for human beings to produce and view those products.
      What about the effects of pornography? Doesn’t it objectify women and diminish self esteem? Perhaps some religious moralists feel that way within their belief system which adheres to Paul’s writing “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.”(I Corinthians 14:34, KJV), and, “For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.” (I Corinthians 11:8-9, KJV)  
      Some would suggest this is a position of stones and glass houses being held by religious moralists in their concern about women being objectified and self esteem issues brought about by being viewed as ‘second to man, not equal’ in an indignant attack on pornography. Others respond that women also consume pornography and appear in pornography products as a means to pay bills in a culture which, at best, they can earn only seventy cents on the dollar compared men performing the same job.
      The porn industry is one place where women are paid more than their male counterparts.
      Another effect of pornography is the recent trend of deeming frequent consumption of pornography as ‘addiction.’ The American Psychiatric Association (APA) in its Diagnosticand Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-4 and proposed DSM-5) does not recognize this ‘addiction’ or any disorder attributed to consumption of pornography. There is the possibility that frequent exposure to pornography is a result or symptom of other unresolved issues in one’s life. The statement, then, ‘pornography destroyed my marriage’ must be viewed in the total context not just one aspect.
      Another effect many perceive pornography as having is causing sex crimes such as rape and pedophilia. Again, research by the APA and independent studies show this to have no statistical support. While those guilty of sex crimes usually consume pornography and some drive Fords, not all people who drive Fords and consume pornography commit sex crimes.
      The irony of the moral debate is summed up by, of all people, Larry Flynt when he says he doesn’t have to do much advertising for his products because the church people do it for him. He may have a point since a free market economy has a Darwinist feature when a product having no exposure or consumption doesn’t make much money. Sex may sell, but notoriety and naughtiness are also features seen at many bachelor/bachelorette parties through pornography products.
      The main danger pornography poses is not its products but the social indictments by a few that if a product, T.V. show, or shock radio host is offensive then it must be pornography. It is much easier to not buy, not watch or not listen to what is offensive and let the market take care of the rest rather than create a sign, preach to the choir, and generally be unhappy the world doesn’t conform to one’s every will.
      All this addresses the social polemics which, in reality, hasn’t changed the positions of either side. However, there are casualties not a part of these debates; artists.
      In the heated passions of debates over pornography, the fine arts seem to always get lumped into the mix. There is a tendency for anything depicting nudity falls into the chasm of the ‘community standards’ rule of what is pornography. By many standards museum content created by old and contemporary masters can be viewed as pornography.
      As a volunteer in my local school district’s program, “Up With Art”, in which elementary school students were exposed to individual artists’ work – why they were important, etc. – the large posters and visual aides did not include one image depicting nudity in the fine art context. This is an indictment of the social attitudes in public education which reflect those of society in general; there is no acceptable level of nudity in art for kids although, locally, the Dayton Art Institute has on permanent display some very nice examples created throughout history.
      In 2006 I declared war on the debate; both factions. The parties which believe First Amendment rights entitle them to print or produce anything they want regardless of redeeming value opens the door to a plethora of slippery slope arguments to justify the publication of autopsy images, necrophilia, and so forth. The parties which want a carte blanche authority to censor anything which they deem offensive take this issue to the other extreme based upon a particular taste and morals.
      In my opinion, both sides are wrong.
      But, opinions are not solutions. Still, as this debate continues the fine arts continue to be casualties through perception in an age when national funding for the arts has been all but eliminated.
      As an artist, my response is the production of “Elevations.” In this work I have extracted from various adult oriented sources images which I viewed as raw materials from which to make something with social commentary and redeeming value beyond the single purpose creation and consumption of pornography.
      To accomplish this has required to, yes, view a considerable amount of still images and video which, initially, I found distasteful. There is a threshold of sensitivity which was crossed after several months which enabled me to view and select images with a clinical mindset; that is, evaluating content for its image potential rather than for what it was. Intellectually, I justified this as being a case of a higher purpose being the goal. I also placed certain indifference to the material’s single-minded purpose and, like a sculptor visiting a marble quarry to select his stone from all rock, made my selections based upon intuition as well as what ‘life’ I can bring to the materials through my hammer and chisel.
      I have no hope whatsoever this work will end the socio-political debates. At the very most I hope my products will be helpful for all sides to understand the fine arts should not be included in the skirmishes and the word ‘pornography’ be detached form images with far deeper value than some people are willing or capable of experiencing.  

      The larger question being posed is the issue of ‘personal authority.’ If judgments of pornography and art are based upon the critical foundation of ‘I know it when I see it,’ are accepted as a personal opinion more revealing of the speaker than the image, then there is little to be discussed. When those same judgments become pontificated to solicit others to check their brains at the doorway of reason and critical thinking, then that becomes a different matter

- Max Skeans, 2011    

 

Elevation #2 (2009)

 

 

         Elevation #03, 2010     

 

 

Elevation #04, 2010