A year after the publication of the first anthology of philosophical essays on art and pornography, Hans Maes’ second collection presents a somewhat different approach to the same topic. 1 Some of the essays continue the philosophical themes discussed before: can a single work be at the same time pornography and art? How should pornography be defined and what are its distinctive features? Is pornography immoral? But the larger part of the book explores more specific issues. Discussed are particular examples of pornographic works of high aesthetic value, artworks inspired by pornography and sex, explicit art from Ancient Rome and Mediaeval Spain, differences between mainstream, feminist and gay pornography, social attitudes to pornography and explicit art, etc. The authors come from diverse backgrounds: philosophers, artists, gallery curators, pornographers and art historians. Here lies the greatest strength of Pornographic Art: it gives voice to a variety of writers who approach por...

On the whole, neither those who hold that pornography can never be art nor their opponents specify what they actually mean by `art', even though it seems natural that their conclusions should vary depending on how the concept is understood. This paper offers a `definitional crossword' and confronts some definitions of pornography with the currently most well-established definitions of art. My discussion shows that following any of the modern definitions entails that at least some pornography not only can be, but actually is, art.

Art and pornography are often thought to be mutually exclusive. The present article argues that this popular view is without adequate support. Section 1 looks at some of the classic ways of drawing the distinction between these two domains of representation. In Section 2, it is argued that the classic dichotomies (subjectivity versus objectification, the beautiful versus the smutty, contemplation versus arousal, the complex versus the one-dimensional, the original versus the formulaic, imagination versus fantasy) may help to illuminate the differences between certain prototypical instances of pornography and art, but will not serve to justify the claim that pornography and art are fundamentally incompatible. Section 3 considers those definitions of pornography that make an a priori distinction between pornographic and artistic representations. The difference between the ‘merely’ erotic and the pornographic is also discussed in this context. Section 4 provides a critical assessment of the most recent and elaborate arguments against the compatibility of pornography and art. Finally, in Section 5, a case is made for the existence of pornographic art, as a subcategory of erotic art.

The purpose of this study is – following philosophical, psychoanalytical and literary research of the obscene – to demonstrate the fact that the transition from eroticism to pornography was achieved with the transition from the instinctual (animal) stage to the cultural (civilisation) stage, through transgression of the sexual taboo. This transgressive approach led not only to the undermining of the traditional values imposed by taboos (like the sexual one, Eros, or the death taboo, Thanatos), but also to the creation of new ones, under the sign of the obscene. Within these parameters, pornography is the central element, generated under the mark of pornotopia. Such a metamorphosis of the individual - from the position of the reality principle, characteristic of the profane world of labour, into that of the pleasure principle, characteristic of the sacred world of celebration – was achieved by passing pornography through the initial filter of Renaissance creations, followed by using it as a political weapon during the Age of Enlightenment and Modernity and finishing with current political discourse, and the exhibition of an obscene reality in what we call advertising and show business.

In this paper I explain the respective natures of both pornography and art by means of their intended responses, drawing upon concepts inaugurated and expanded upon by Jerrold Levinson, Nelson Goodman, David Davies and Matthew Kieran. Examining the views of these philosophers of art and aesthetics will reveal whether the arguments against pornographic art are merely facades for moral prejudice.

Written for a broad audience and grounded in cutting-edge, contemporary scholarship, this volume addresses some of the key questions asked about pornography today. What is it? For whom is it produced? What sorts of sexualities does it help produce? Why should we study it, and what should be the most urgent issues when we do? What does it mean when we talk about pornography as violence? What could it mean if we discussed pornography through frameworks of consent, self-determination and performance? This book places the arguments from conservative and radical anti-porn activists against the challenges coming from a new generation of feminist and queer porn performers and educators. Combining sensitive and detailed discussion of case studies with careful attention to the voices of those working in pornography, it provides scholars, activists and those hoping to find new ways of understanding sexuality with the first overview of the histories and futures of pornography