predictable and

unsubtle

like being stung by a wasp in September

I think the intent is the key. Particularly since porn is derived from the greek for prostitute. So if I create an image, photographic or otherwise, that evokes a sexual response it's only porn if my intent was to make money by getting that two part response. But since my intent is to sell it as "fine art", then I'm not a pornographer, I'm an artist, :-)

I see I can end up working this to the conclusion that any erotic art is porn, so let me back up to the greek root again: for me porn is the display of something (a pose, an act, a dance, whatever) where the displayer is offering his or her body for sexual gratification of the viewer in exchange, hopefully, for money or other things of value. So if you look at the images on met-art.com or domai.com, you find most of the time the women have expressions on their faces and poses that do not convey that kind of proposition, even though they are almost always completely nude and often showing everything. But when you go to a "real" porn site, the women are often more clothed, but are acting as if they are making that kind of proposition.

I've worked with several nude models, and with one exception, none of them were interested in doing "porn.' As I think back over out sessions, I think what I just said pretty much covers what they meant. One of them who did not want to do "porn" was more than happy to go into very explicit poses, and even to put on a facial expression that implied "come and get it." But to her it was part of doing erotic art, as she had no intent beyond being as sexual as she could. The one who was interested in doing "porn" was quite a bit older and freerer. But I'm not even sure how to do porn photos, so I tried for erotic and you can judge for yourself in my profile's private pics.

I have to agree with you. I prefer having the sensuality involved.,

I posted this in the wrong place. Sorry about that Elijah. (It's been a long day of eating too-rich food and writing emails in spanish! That's my story and I'm sticking to it!!) So, here it is again, and you can delete it from where ever it was I posted it in error, if you can find it!

------------

I love what theologian Matthew Fox says about the root cause of pornography. He sees it as the church & society handing over Eros to the pornographers due to averting it's eyes and sending all things sensual underground. Pornographers take the stripped down (pardon the pun!) version, necessarily devoid of any sensuality in order to mass produce and sell it broadly. You hit the nail on the head. If there is a clientèle and a profit, there will be a business. If we could open our eyes and enjoy our bodies freely and without shame, there would be less ignorance and no market at all for exploitive pornography. This is what Matthew Fox said, I think.... I couldn't verify the source, but I heard this back in 1988, so bear with me!

"I wonder how many Christians have been invited to meditate on the fact that the word carnal is at the heart of their primary doctrine of Incarnation. Our culture, having been poisoned by negative attitudes toward flesh, is ill at ease with the notion. Indeed, a religious faith that claims to believe that "the word was made flesh" actually denigrates flesh and has turned "flesh" over to the pornographic industries rather than sanctifying it and including it in our spiritual practice. It is time for the ambivalence towards flesh to cease. Either flesh is sacred or it is not. Either the divine is present, incarnated (which literally means "made flesh"), or it is not. If it is not, it is time that worship and education became enfleshed, incarnated, in order to provide a proper home (eikos) for the Divine, which is clearly biased in favor of flesh, having, after all, made it. Our very language is biased against the flesh: Webster's Dictionary says that the antonym or opposite of carnal is spiritual or intellectual. Here we are, two thousand years after the Incarnation of Jesus, and our language still doesn't get it: that flesh and spirit are one. . . . "

You may or may not know, that this sort of talk was part of what got Matthew Fox booted from The Church (by then-Cardinal Ratzinger) back then. heh! I'm not catholic, or even christian, but I *really* like this guy!

"The vehicle of photography, for example, taking an event out of context cannot be the responsibility of the capturer."

Unless the capturer is exploitive and abusive in the pursuit of profit, and *that* is the difference between pornography and erotic art, in my eye. The production, distribution and sale of pornography is a profit-driven business first and foremost. The actors or models (or whatever they call themselves) are quite often lured into the business on promises of stardom and then find that the opposite is true, that they are stuck there because nobody wants a former porn model doing their perfume commercials (or whatever). Drug abuse is rampant among the women who get sucked into this work. I could go on. (And I haven't even touched on the topic of child pornography.)

I agree with what you say about beliefs, attitudes and values, and will add that values are so different from one culture to the next at any given point in time. I also hate it when other people impose their values on me. But abuse is abuse and exploitation is exploitation. There *is* a difference between the way pornography and erotic art is produced, distributed and "consumed." The business ethics of the capturer (or the person paying the capturer) is not really a values-based thing. Businesses can't do whatever they want to make a buck. They have to follow laws, at least, if not ethics.