Alan Moore has called his work Lost Girls pornography.
Lost girls is clearly a work of art, but it also very sexually explicit.
Other people feel that "pornography" means something debased, dirty, bereft of any decent or artistic quality.
This makes discussion difficult. For example the young women who moved in last year close by, asked me suddenly: "do you have a porn site?" Some neighbors had "alerted" them...
Well, I showed them Domai, and they still think of it as porn. And they like it. (Several of their friends have actually enthusiastically offered to model for me!)
The problem comes from two incompatible definitions:
1: por·nog·ra·phy (pôr-nŏg'rə-fē) obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, esp. those having little or no artistic merit.
Origin: 1840–50; < Gk pornográph(os) writing about harlots
2: por·nog·ra·phy
n. Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.
See? The second one is merely a mechanical definition, clear and simple. The first one is full of judgment and evaluation.
The problem of course does not come from the dictionary, but from how people feel about it. Those people who hate porn gravitate to the first definition.
For some, Domai fits in the second definition. For me, as sexuality is only a sub-purpose, it fits in neither. And I'm sure there are many people on Earth for whom it fits in the first definition, merely by having nudity.
Now GoddessNudes, that took a bit of courage to put forth, because it clearly is pornography by the second definition. Sexuality is at the forefront. The main purpose is sexual arousal. I can live with that, because to me it clearly has artistic and cultural merit also. But when people call me a pornographer, it's no longer so easy to wave them off.
17 comments:
Mmmh, I can imagine viewing Domai publicly like in an Internet cafe, or even at work (during the lunch break or so), and would also defend it because it comes with a mission.
Whereas Goddesses clearly would make it difficult to explain to many people that it's NOT PORN, but a means to get exited and aroused. N'est-ce pas? It's very thin ice. Not many people would tolerate a computer screen showing Goddesses.
Speaking of myself: I'm happy with Domai, Goddesses definitely doesn't strike a chord.
But I have admiration for the fact that Eo endeavours to cross thin ice.
One more thing: linking from Twitter to Domai pics is perfectly ok, and certainly within the scope of a mission (the very Domai mission), whereas links to Goddesses would make it hard to shed off a pornographic (and thus devaluating) aspect.
Well, these are my personal impressions, I'm not generalising, of course.
(The Dpomai mission....is to diffuse the elegance of the human body).
Yeah, I don't wanna set up yet another twit account. But I've put up fair warning that people may see explicit images.
You sure did so.
And that's the thing: A link to Domai wouldn't require a Warning", whereas a link to Goddesses requires one for sure.
I feel the two websites get mixed in such a way (also because of the 3 identities on Twitter, yet, for an outsider, referring to the same thing), that would make it impossible to separate the intentions of the two sites, and thus spoil the honorable mission of Domai. Remember the immense positive feedback which Domai keeps getting.
Thanks for discussing the problem so thoroughly and openly.
I see Domai and Goddesses as artistic and like both of them. But I see the beauty they express as being outside the norm. I recognize that when behavior is different from the norm, then the one who is outside the norm has the burden of explanation. If both sites keep stressing art, beauty, joy and happiness which are universally a part of the norm, then some will be won over; but I think never will the resposibility cease to explain, since nudity will always be outside the norm.
"the one who is outside the norm has the burden of explanation."
Good point.
I found out, after I'd had Domai for ten years, that my own sister thought it was a porn site, she'd never *seen* the site! (Even in Denmark, many people don't have an easy time with nudity.)
"Some neighbors had "alerted" them... Well, I showed them Domai, and they still think of it as porn. And they like it."
Talk about "unintended consequence", eh? :-D
"(Several of their friends have actually enthusiastically offered to model for me!)"
Nothing like mouth to m... I mean word of mouth for promotion! :-)
Again, some nudity-haters seem like the best publicists.
"But when people call me a pornographer, it's no longer so easy to wave them off."
Perhaps it's just wisdom of old age kicking in? You've realized that you'll never be able to wave them off, so "what the hey, why not?"
Once more, perhaps they ended up causing the very result they were trying to fight!
"Whereas Goddesses clearly would make it difficult to explain to many people that it's NOT PORN, but a means to get exited and aroused."
Definition #2, Monsieur...
You cannot fight definition #1, because it's in the irrational domain. Therefore, these people won't even accept to listen to rational arguments, even if you're just trying to explain #2. "LA-LA-LA, not LISTENING!!!"
"But I've put up fair warning that people may see explicit images.
You sure did so."
To quote a knight in some novel: "The warning was as fair as the damsel herself."
Said blonde damsel had just shot a Frost Giant "where it hurts" with her uzi!...
"Stay back, I'm warning you! [BLAM!] Uhm... you hurt much?
- (moan) NOW thou asketh?"
It's true, of course, that GN isn't entirely in the same spirit as Domai. It's frankly crossed to the sexually explict zone. While remaining very tasteful, and STILL some kid of "anti-porn" (#1) in that aspect! I'd say it's "clean erotica". :-)
It again reminds me of the main message in that PlayboyTV video: a reaction, an "antidote", to the "race towards vulgarity".
"nudity will always be outside the norm."
Maybe. Then again, maybe not. I hope you're mistaken there. It is Society that defines "the norm". Maybe people WILL evolve. Some distant day.
Uhm... "WARNING: above links may show nudity." ;-)
"(Even in Denmark, many people don't have an easy time with nudity.)"
What, don't you have public family saunas, like in Finland and Norway?
My attitude toward issues like this has always been, they're just words. Words are imperfect symbols, and people are never going to agree over them. As a fan of rock music, I always get annoyed when people get focused on fixing a band into some narrow sub-genre(punk, metal, alternative, etc.) instead of actually listening to them. It's like the label becomes more important than the music. And I just think that's bad for creativity in general.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is, does it really matter if something is or isn't pornography? It is what it is, and you either like it or you don't.
You have a good point.
Although it can help understanding sometimes. For example it helped me understand newspapers when it was pointed out that they are entertainment.
And it helped me understand Iain Banks' book The Wasp Factory when I realized it's really a horror novel, despite the lack of anything supernatural or any graphic slayings.
That's true, I mean, I'm not totally against the idea. I think it'd be easier if people could recognize that they're just adjectives, not something to be taken seriously in themselves.
Pornography, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. There are no universally accepted definitions of either. Nor is there a really fully accepted definition of Art.
We keep trying to define Pornography by using other un-defined words and concepts.
I think the whole argument is somewhat irrational. Calling something pornography is the first step to banning/censoring it.
If there is something wrong or shameful about being an artist, then, there the same applies to being a pornographer. If it is not shameful to be an artist, then it is not shameful to be a pornographer.
Pornography deserves the same freedom of expression protection as "Art." There is no completely rational and objective way to always tell the two apart.
That is completely true, but try telling that to those who feel very strongly that porn is evil and the cause of violence.
Maybe Moore is right, maybe we should take over the word. The Danish word for gay, "boesse", was taken over by the gays, leaving the gay bashers without any derogatory term.
Lost Girls may not be pornographic, but just the idea of it turns my stomach. I hate to say that about something of his.
Keep it simple: porn is what you wouldn't show to your parents. ;-)
Oh well, there are believers, nonbelievers, the earth is flat, the earth is round, God, no God, evolution, creationism, nudity is good, nudity is bad, sex is good, sex is bad, etc. etc. etc.
In addition to the previous, "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts."
Oh well, there are believers, nonbelievers, the earth is flat, the earth is round, God, no God, evolution, creationism, nudity is good, nudity is bad, sex is good, sex is bad, etc. etc. etc.
Most of those examples aren't matters of opinion. Evolution is fact. Also, the idea of a flat Earth is a relatively recent one. Aristotle thought it was a perfect sphere.
I would consider nudity and erotic material to be Art regardless of whether the intention is sexual arousal or otherwise. Fact is, the models like to be photographed (or video recorded) naked and the viewers like to look at them - probably because the viewers find them beautiful / attractive.
I concur with this:
"I guess the point I'm trying to make is, does it really matter if something is or isn't pornography? It is what it is, and you either like it or you don't."
The Western world have however began to come away from a zealous "sex is sin" mentality and realise that enjoying looking at nude women is a natural human instinct as opposed to some sort of evil depravity.
Post a Comment