Content vs. Presentation

How does one define "art", and how does one define "porn"?

Some people may make certain exceptions, but it is generally agreed that the subject of art can be more or less anything. While it can be difficult to pin down what, exactly, makes a piece of art a piece of art, one way of approaching it is viewing it as a technical skill. Good painters are very good at using their skills to paint beautiful (or otherwise impressive) pictures. Similarly, good sculptors are very good at using their skills to create beautiful (or impressive) sculptures.

In photography, pretty much anyone can pick up a camera and take a picture, but we generally consider photographic artists to be those who can use their skills to create beautiful photographs, by understanding how their camera works, and paying careful attention to the lighting, composition, and arrangement of elements in a photograph. Thus we can distinguish between an amateur "snapshot" and a carefully composed piece of photographic "art".

Of course, the distinction between snapshot and art is a fluid one, and some may argue that snapshots can also be art, by other definitions of art. And, an artist in training may inevitably capture a lot of snapshots with the intention of producing art. DeviantART is a social-sharing community, and does not place any restrictions on the quality of art uploaded by its users to its website. So although you may have lofty aspirations as to the nature of deviantART as an "art" site - while it is dedicated to art, there is no guarantee made whatsoever about the quality of the art you will encounter on this site, and furthermore there are no restrictions placed on any sort of art that does not meet a minimum standard of quality, as far as "art" is concerned.

It happens, however, that one of the most common exceptions made by pretentious moralists as to certain subjects that, by their standard, cannot be considered from an artistic perspective, is human sexuality. Some will begrudgingly allow for the long and exalted history of artistic nudes, but even then, daring artists are treading on thin ice. The fact remains, however, that aside from a certain moralist objection (which has no place in the determination of what constitutes art), it is entirely possible to present human sexuality in an artistic context, using the same careful approach in terms of lighting, composition, and et cetera, that another artist would use to create a beautiful landscape, or an arresting portrait.

Nevertheless, the term "porn" is often bandied about in these cases, and, unfortunately, it has a very nebulous definition that complicates the issue. The word itself, used among polite company, does not simply presuppose media of certain content (namely, human sexuality), but media of a certain vulgar, base quality. So that, regardless of the truth of the matter, images that depict human sexuality are often treated as trash, and not commonly considered alongside "art", which by the same pretentious mindset is considered as something esteemed and precious, to which the human desire to "fuck" could never hope to aspire.

To use a metaphor, it is like the difference between opera and pop music. Opera has a higher class reputation than pop music, and some would argue that opera is art, while pop music could never hope to be. Whether or not this is true (and it may simply be a case of confusing "fine art" with art in general), the fact remains that one could write an opera about sex, just as one could write a pop song about the same issue. And while it may be true that songs about sex are more frequently of the poppy, less "artistic" variety, that in no way limits the possibility of somebody creating a very tasteful, artistic, and high class opera centered on the theme of sex.

Imagine that scenario, if you would. There are many who would consider such a vulgar opera as base as any of the pop songs written on a similar subject. To these people, it is not the quality of the art that they are concerned with, but what message the art is trying to convey, and any message so pruriently concerned with such lustful matters can't possibly be exalted to the level of "high art". These people are deluded and hypocritical, and pretentious to an unforgivable degree.

However, the problem remains of how to differentiate low-quality porn from the more artistic variety of erotica. And we come back to the same problem of subjectivity that we had in determining the line between "snapshot" photography and real art. That line is fluid, as it ever was, and depends on subjective judgment. And so, as it is the case with art in general, the website deviantART, as many others, leaves it out of their hands to determine the difference between vulgar porn and erotic art. Like every other subject, deviantART does not discriminate against low quality erotic images and does not have a bar of quality that must be met for them to be accepted on the site.

Now, I'd love to see people stop quibbling over whether a "pornographic" image (often very loosely defined) can be considered "art", but I'm afraid that's a debate that will never meet its end. Yet, the fact remains that the question of "art or not?" is entirely irrelevant on this site. The important question is not whether porn can be art (it can), but whether a given image really is porn or not. And, as you may or may not be amazed to learn, deviantART actually has pretty clear rules about what constitutes "porn" in the context of images they don't allow on this site. You may or may not agree with the details of those rules (I have some quarrels with them myself), and where they choose to draw certain lines, but the fact is, the lines are relatively clear (to the extent that they can be).

Defined by deviantART's rules, porn is, simply, art that depicts certain acts of human sexuality in an explicit manner. It makes no difference whether the art in question has been created with technical finesse and adherence to the principles of good composition, or if it was shot haphazardly by a pervert with a webcam. The only thing that matters, as far as what images are allowed to appear on deviantART and what are not, is whether the image explicitly depicts sexual activity, as defined in the website's rules.

So, a picture that the United States government might describe as a "lascivious exhibition" of somebody's genitals, and that any reasonable person would consider a vulgar and tasteless display of someone's nether regions, would be perfectly accepted on deviantART (provided those genitals are not being manipulated in any way that could be described as "sexual"). Meanwhile, another artist could upload a very tasteful and artistic depiction of a woman being caressed by a man in a visibly aroused state, and find his work categorized as restricted material. This is not about art, and not about taste, it is simply and bluntly about sex.

But not simply the suggestion of sex. Sexiness is okay. The erotic is permitted. The subject of sex is not taboo, only the blatant depiction of it is. Not people's bodies alone, no - nudity is permitted behind a mature content filter. Just a specific manipulation of those bodies that involves sexual arousal and contact. The primary concern for me, personally, is that one is allowed to view the male genitalia, but not see it in a state of arousal. We are allowed to observe that a man has genitalia, but not see what it looks like in its "agitated" state. Which, frankly, I take as discrimination against men, for a man can become aroused without sexual contact, and this is clearly visible, and uniquely difficult to mask, in a way that it is not for a woman, which makes the task of photographing a male model in an erotic shoot (which is a subject not, remember, disallowed by deviantART) particularly more challenging than using a female model in the same way.

But this is just another form of quibbling. The standing fact is that deviantART has stricter restrictions against images depicting sexual activity than it does against images of a suitably deficient artistic quality. And, furthermore, the website makes a very reasonable distinction between nudity and sexual activity. So, it simply does not make sense to argue about what is or is not art, and whether, as a result, it deserves (or "ought") to show up on deviantART. It's incredible how many times I've seen someone view an image of a person's nude body and mistake that for a sex act.

It matters not a whit whether you think that nudity is vulgar, or whether a certain image gets you hot and bothered. DeviantART allows nudity and disallows porn. If you don't like it, you can take it up with the site. But be sure and understand the distinction between nudity and porn. DeviantART already restricts porn, so if it's the nudity you don't like to see, complain about the nudity, not the "porn". And if it's the vulgar, inartistic shots of people's genitals that makes you angry, think on this. There are two ways to eliminate it. Either you can lobby for the site to get rid of all nudity (which is a valid stance, if not one that I agree with), or you can opt for a filter on the quality of art that is submitted.

But let me warn you, that last option is unreasonable and unrealistic. Enforcing it would be next to impossible, involving subjective judgments of the art that is submitted, leading to no end of conflict and arguments over what sort of art will and will not be allowed, without any clear guide to consult beforehand, other than: "a gatekeeper will evaluate your art as it is submitted, and decide if he thinks it's good enough for the website or not". (And you can bet this website doesn't have the hours or manpower to enforce that rule). But, last of all, the enactment of such a rule means that you, too, would be subject to it, and all of your art would have to be evaluated for quality before it is allowed to be featured on this site.

Personally, I wouldn't be entirely against such a system - except for the fact that it would be impossible to enforce on this scale. I'm willing to submit my work to an evaluation of its quality - the quality of the material on this site would benefit vastly as a result. But for the fact that that judgment is subjective, and any two people may not agree on what is "good". But then it'd be like we were back in school, submitting our assignments to be graded by an authoritarian overlord. And this is the internet. This is deviantART, for goodness' sake. It's not a sophisticated art gallery. It's a community for deviant artists and artists-in-training, a haven for outcasts and nonconformists and people who like to stretch the boundaries and take risks and ruffle feathers - like all the great artists do - and who might be looking for a community that's willing to accept them in all their eccentricities.

Or, I could be mistaken in that regard.