I went on a definition spree and decided to look up pornography in order to place it in to the preexisting definition of High Art. In one definition, pornography is said to be the explicit representation of the human body or sexual activity with the goal of sexual arousal. Whereas erotica is considered to be the use of sexually arousing imagery used for artistic purposes only. So I'm thinking that if John Curran paints over a pornographic image, does it skip over the high art category and go straight to erotica? Or, can porn turned into erotica go into the high art category depending on the materials used because it is considered to be artistic? Is porn just porn no matter how you jazz it up? Can erotica be high art? More questions, the cycle continues.
By the way, when looking up images of 'erotica', I found this piece by Raeford Liles. It's a painted sexual act titled 'Asian Erotica' of all things, and is on a fine arts website.
I'm thinking that more people would consider Liles' piece high art over John Curran because of the treatment of the subject matter. Curran paints over real porn, giving it that realistic touch, and the colors are muted. Liles piece shows real figures in a simplified way, and uses non realistic colors. I think that makes Liles piece easier to digest, while Currans piece is shocking. I much rather prefer Curran over that Asian Erotica piece, but I could see Liles in a run of the mill art gallery before Curran.
No comments:
Post a Comment