Art or Pornography

M. Briones

A Malaspina University-College graphic arts student was recently suspended for creating an art work that was deemed inappropriate and disruptive to the learning environment

The art work contained an array of female nudity, animals, a variety of textures and colors, which according to some students is borderline pornographic. But to the artist, it's an inspiring piece.

And in the art world, there is nothing wrong with painting or drawing a nude female. It's a familiar and fully exploited subject used by artists originating from at least the Greeks to this day. So it comes as a shock to the student to find himself being reprimanded for what he believes is nothing else but his way of expressing art.

This case raises an age-old question of "Is it art or is it pornography?" How do you separate the two? After reading books on this subject, I find the answers to be a bit vague and uncertain.

The answers are often based on what an individual perceives art to be. If a majority of the public deem a nude painting to be sexually explicit and offensive, then it's bad. But is it? Another segment of society might not look at it that way.

According to controversial artist Douglas Graves (Figure Painting in Oil, 1979), "The study of the female figure is indispensable to the education and experience of the artist." The statement holds true in art schools where female or male models are hired to pose for a gallery of artists wanting to learn how to recreate the human body through various methods of art. If this is practiced openly at schools today, without malice attached to the activity, then why is a painting or a drawing of a nude person, at times deemed to be unacceptable.

At a recent erotic art show held in Parksville (British Columbia) called "Sex", a pamphlet distributed to the public talked about the thin line that separates erotic art and pornography:

"Aesthetically, erotic art is Apollonian and pornographic art is Dionysian. Sigmund Freud described our Dionysian nature as that part that is repressed. Curiously, our politics are Apollonian and our religions come via the Dionysian ... the difference is between the reality we are able to have out in the open versus that reality that we know exists but which we can only bear when it's hidden in some way."

Lynda Nead in her book The Female Nude, states that "if art is seen to represent the sublimation or transformation of sexual drives, then pornography conveys the sexually unmediated; it incites and moves the viewer to action."

So what was wrong with this student's work which was described as having strong sexual content. In my opinion, and I don't claim to be an expert, nothing is wrong.

Displaying nude art is quite normal in school. You see nudes hanging on walls and you see people creating them with varying degrees and media. They can be sexually explicit or offensive to the public, and if they are, shouldn't this practice stop? But I guess that will not bode well to a majority of the students. So how is this issue defined or resolved? It's really a gray area.

The student was told that his work was not being censored but he was told to do it discreetly so as not to offend anyone. While it may be true that at times we can become very self-conscious and uncomfortable when seeing nudity on a computer screen or canvas, but it doesn't make it wrong. However, in these days of political correctness and social sensitivity, you have to be careful. It only takes a few narrow-minded members of society to destroy a work of art and put a negative label on the artist. And in some cases, you don't need the vote of the majority to influence the views of the powers-that-be when addressing this delicate issue.

The student is currently appealing his suspension. He questions the integrity of the punishment because he feels that no lesson can be learned from it. What it does, according to him, only impedes or discourages artists to openly express their art.

I feel that an artwork is based on the artist's emotions and it should be appreciated subjectively for what those emotions are rather than for what they're not supposed to be.

Call me narrow-minded, but to me, they're all art.