The reactions of spectators regarding erotic art have been documented closely like an abridged history of public views on sex. Every time an artist pushes the boundary, we are inclined to ask where the line can be drawn. Are there inherent differences between art and pornography or are they too closely entwined?
John Currin is a very well known artist whose paintings have a Renaissance feel to them - beautiful bodies in delicate, precise paint strokes; thick colours on canvas. What sets him apart from the movement is the explicit sexual nature of his work.
The technical aspects of the paintings are in every way perfect. The process from paintbrush to canvas is simply the creation of art. So how are we expected to react when the finished result is nothing less than a glorified porno? Does it nullify the painting’s status as art, or reinforce it?
Artists like John Currin could be seen as liberators of sexuality, demolishing the curtain of censorship and granting power to the female body. On the other hand it could be exploitation of the female form. After all, the Guerilla Girls were spot on when they said a naked woman has a better chance in being exhibited than a female artist.
To summarise, my view is that there is no line neither should it be drawn. To free sexual expressions is what I see as a contributive measure to do away with gender archetypes. Art is there to stimulate the mind, pornography stimulates the body - who are we to discriminate when a piece is capable of doing both?
Comments are off Subscribe