On the Creation of Art versus the Creation of Porn

what is art? as one who considers myself/aspires to be an artist, i've lately felt compelled to answer this question. i've always had a vague, "i know it when i see it" approach to determining artistic merit (a standard once famously applied to pornography; more on that below). i've come to believe that this approach is not sufficient, and after some reflection, i've hit upon the beginnings of my own understanding of the term as i use it. the breakthrough happened when i hit upon what i believe to be the opposite of what i mean by "art": namely, porn.

i should note here that i'm approaching this as a practicing artist, not an academic; i have read some aesthetic theory, but am by no means an expert on aesthetics, so i'm sure that some of what follows is not original to me. however, i'm eager to hear about any academic writing that has been done along these same lines, if only to sharpen my ideas, so please feel free to enlighten me if i'm treading on familiar ground.



PART ONE: DEFINITIONS.

a definition of "art". my broadest, most comprehensive definition is this: art is the conscious attempt by an individual, or coordinated group of individuals possessing a singularity of vision, to comment on some aspect of human existence through the use of non-literal representations.

breaking the definition down a bit:

"...the conscious attempt..." this is to say that art is not simply anything we observe which inspires a revelation; art must be created with deliberate intent. a sunset or a flower or even the bustle of commuters at grand central station observed from above may be beautiful, may arouse emotion, may even trigger a breakthrough in awareness, but the end result is not enough. if these phenomena are art, then the definition of "art" can be applied to any and all aspects of reality, according to the subjective experience of the observer. if art simply means anything that inspires someone, the word becomes meaningless. art must be created intentionally, as it must contain a "comment" (more on this below).

"...by an individual or coordinated group of individuals possessing a singularity of vision..." see above re: deliberate intent. it is obviously possible to create a work of art through the collaborative process, but the difficulty lies in the singularity of vision, since individuals are very likely to have different and conflicting goals, either with regard to the substance of the "comment", the best techniques for achieving the "comment", or the goal of creating art in the first place.

"...to comment on some aspect of human existence..." the crux of my definition is this word, "comment". to be art, it must "say something". the substance of whatever is being "said", along with the artist's success at "saying" it, is what makes some art better than other art, but the comment is required. i'm not talking about anything political or pedantic here; in fact, any "comment" that can be reduced to rhetoric falls into the category of art's opposite (see below), due to its predictability. the perfect symmetry of a bach fugue or a da vinci painting, the multiple perspectives of cubism or "the rite of spring", the dada of duchamp's "fountain" or the absurdism of a kafka story -- all these are departures from reality which create a comment on reality in the audience's mind. bach's music--or da vinci's painting--says, reality is more beautiful and symmetrical than you realize. "the rite of spring" or "les demoiselles d'avignon" says, there are more perspectives existing simultaneously than you realize (and they can crash into one another with great force). duchamp's urinal sculpture says, art itself is more than you have previously envisioned. kafka says, life can be as ridiculous and inexplicable as the experience of waking up as a cockroach one morning. (these are obviously simplistic reductions of the effects of these works of art, but you get the point.)

"...through the use of non-literal representations." art must depart from a literal depiction of reality, and by doing so, draw attention to that particular aspect of reality. non-literalism is how the comment is achieved. a reproduction of reality, in other words, is not art, even though it may be created using the same techniques. it contributes no new information, it contains no comment. like the spontaneous phenomena discussed above, reproduction of reality may coincidentally inspire some sort of breakthrough or awareness, but it does so only by accident. art must depart from reality, and this departure is where the "comment" happens, as it is this departure from reality, this non-literalism, that catches the attention of the audience. (even duchamp's "fountain" discussed above, while seemingly plucked from reality, is a deliberate departure from the reality of an art exhibit, forcing the audience to reckon with a new notion of art itself.)

the opposite of art is porn. porn is faux-art, often produced with the identical techniques as art, but which does not go beyond pure gratification (which includes intellectual gratification – i.e., flattery of the audience’s assumptions and prejudices). i believe that most of what humans create, even in the guise of creating art, is actually porn. its goal is to satisfy, to gratify.

i will note there that these two distinctions -- art and porn -- are not hierarchal. one is not superior to another; both are necessary in their own way. gratification is a wonderful experience, and we long for it, as surely as we long for the revelation produced by art. that being said, the creation of art is a far more difficult task, as there are so many traps which the artist can fall into and in so doing, create porn instead. i would even venture to say all artists create porn sometimes, and some even do so most of the time (however, no one who is intending to create porn can create art, since the intent is not there, and therefore any comment is accidental). incidentally, i don't exclude myself from this category; most of what i have created in my lifetime would be categorized as porn. part of the reason for me writing this essay is to bring the distinction to light in my own mind, and apply it to my own process, so that i understand what it is that i am creating. there is nothing wrong with creating porn, i just don't want to create porn while deluding myself into believing i was creating art.



PART TWO: GUIDELINES FOR THE CREATION OF ART VERSUS THE CREATION OF PORN.

this is not a comprehensive list; it is a continuously updated work-in-progress.

first guideline: art is a form of communication, and therefore requires an audience. artwork with no audience is self-gratification, i.e. porn.

second guideline: art presents a point of view; it cannot be value-neutral. a work of art, by definition, takes a stand with regard to its subject. it presents a way of looking at the subject that says, in effect, it is this way, and not some other way. art that strives not to offend by not taking a stand on its subject defers to the gratification of the sensibilities of the audience; it is porn.

third guideline: the tension in art is between the fulfillment of the audience’s expectations and the subversion of those expectations; art ultimately must never err on the side of fulfillment. all art sustains its tension and momentum by maintaining a balance between the fulfillment of the audience's expectations and the subversion of those expectations, but if the ultimate effect errs on the side of fulfillment, what has been created is not art, but porn.

fourth guideline: art uses aspects of porn, but does not succumb to them. since it requires the engagement of the audience, much effective art uses the techniques of porn in service of the larger goal of the comment. "art" does not mean "boring" -- the artist must hold the audience's attention, often fooling the audience into thinking that they're watching porn by creating moments of gratification. incidentally, porn, too, may use the techniques of art (mostly to flatter the audience into believing they have had the experience of artistic revelation rather than a pornographic gratification).

fifth guideline: the subversion of expectations is how the comment is achieved.. this is related to the discussion of non-literal representation above. it is only by subverting the audience's expectations that art can call attention to itself and its intent. fulfilling the audience's expectations simply gives them information they already have.

sixth guideline: a work of art communicates that which is beyond the power of description and cannot be fully explained, only experienced. if the point of it is only to communicate an idea that can be explained rhetorically, it is pedantic, and ultimately predictable (ultimately fulfilling expectations), i.e. porn.

seventh guideline: a "good" work of art reveals something new to the audience. A "great" one forces the audience to acknowledge a reality which already exists, but which the audience has been concealing from themselves.This is what makes the creation of a "great" work of art so difficult; its intentions are almost indistinguishable from the intentions of porn (which is why attempts to be "great" are so often so bad). the task of revealing something already known to the audience is almost exactly the same as fulfilling their expectations; the difference here is that the artist is able to identify that which is being concealed, and know how to force an audience to admit it. this, for example, is the essence of tragedy in theater: with, say, death of a salesman, the title tells us the ending beforehand, but the audience has a hard time believing that either (a) willy loman will die or (b) if he does, that it will be not because he broke the rules and conventions that he is supposed to live by, but because he followed them. the greatness of the play is that the audience knows the truth -- that the conventions of the "american dream" can be a lie and a trap -- but hopes against hope that what they know to be true is not in fact true.

eighth guideline: with art, the artist is the ultimate dictator. In porn, the audience is the ultimate dictator.

ninth guideline: art exposes, and makes the audiences aware of, the gap between our personal or cultural illusions and the realities of our existence. as indicated above, the primary tool for exposing this gap, and creating the audiences awareness of it, is subversion of expectations. porn, on the other hand, works to conceal the gap between our cultural illusions and the realities of our existence. that is its goal -- to assure the audience that all is right with the world, and that the illusions they walked in with will not ultimately be shaken.

tenth guideline: the expectations of the audience are a constantly-shifting target; what was "art" yesterday is "porn" today. this is perhaps the most frustrating aspect of being an artist, to continually adapt his/her tools and techniques to stay one step ahead of the audience's expectations at all times, since today’s audience will be wise to yesterday’s subversions. a replica of yesterday’s "subversive" techniques produces today’s porn.

more thoughts as they arrive...

UPDATE:

eleventh guideline: all art is, by definition, experimental. if art requires comment, and comment is achieved through subverting expectations, it follows that every new work must be, in some sense, an experiment. if there is no part of the work that is an experiment, if it is using techniques in ways that have already been proven to "work", then the piece comes with a set of pre-existing expectations that will be fulfilled. this is porn.

twelfth guideline: most of the experiments required in the course of making art will fail. this does not push the experiments into the category of porn; however, it means that the artist is constantly running the risk of having his/her experiments fail to connect with audience in the way that the artist intends. repeated failure is often the price of attempting to create art. this is also what makes porn so seductive; any experiment risks failure, whereas sticking to a tested formula is more likely to create (temporary) "success".