catapult magazine

What is it? I think it was John Waters who said the only difference between pornography and prostitution is that with pornography, someone has a camera. Well, what’s the difference between pornographic and artistic displays of sexuality. And is pornography pornography only when there’s sexual content?

hey, grant. do you think something could both stimulate one sexually, and at the same time be considered artistic? could we not look at pornography as a type of art, the art of sexual stimulation?

i wonder why the intent to arouse can often be read as a dismissive. do you have any thoughts on that?

I would never say that intent-to-arouse equals pornography. But usually art has more dimensions of use than pornography. That does seem to be the case. One film that really walks this fine line is "Secret Things". Has anyone seen it? Also, many of Brian DePalma’s films explore the voyeuristic nature of film while also reveling in it. Oh, and David Lynch uses film noir erotica to expose the dark side of Hollywood sexualism. His latest film has a nightmarish scene where a woman is stuck in a room with all her man’s ex-lovers. It’s like a "Bachelor" episode gone horribly awry.

I must say, I am sometimes angry though with the manipulation of tv and film writers who get the audience’s attention (and money) with erotic scenes and then ends the story with a satisfying moral lesson. I would almost rather see films that recognize the thrill of the erotic nature of film and don’t apologize for it. To me, the true nature of film as an art form is that it is dream-like. The narrative follows the rules of dreams: word-and-image association cutting in and out of different times and places. Film-makers capture the essence of dreams when they present unconscious desires that humans have. Presenting unconscious desires is not the same thing as promoting immoral behavior.

Unfortunately the distinction between pornography and non-pornography is used in America to distinguish which entertainment products can be promoted for children and families and which ones for discerning adults, or what we should consider high and lowbrow entertainment. Such a distinction is useful for societal life, but not helpful in determining what is good or bad art (I think I include "porn" in this broad sense of art). If art excels at speaking to our fantasies (I’m not a Freudian, but…) the real issue for Christians is how our fantasy lives (which I take to be a good creation of God) are to be brought under the lordship of Christ. This question includes other questions like how should the human body be displayed truthfully in films. I just saw "Babel" recently and there is a heart-breaking scene where a young Japanese girl confronts a detective with her nakedness hoping he will have sex with her. The director humanizes this girl and her desires in such a beautiful way—I feel like this is one of the most profoundly Christian movies I’ve seen in a while. But obviously "Babel" is not pornography, which brings us back to our question: If we know pornography when we see it, is this a discernment issue that is a learned skill within the viewing itself? If that’s the case, we’re not going to be able to answer this question only in the theoretical realm. We have to watch more movies and tv to learn such discernment skills.