Definitional Argument – Nudity: Art Versus Porn
Claim (Thesis) position of defense
Pictorial representation of the naked human form does not arbitrarily equate to pornography. For centuries, artists have been depicting men, women, and children in the most natural state of being. In nearly every culture, there is evidence of pictorial representations of the naked human form. Unfortunately, much of the American conservative political base would like all of America to think that pornography is evil – a base degradation of women that fills men hearts with lust, promoting rape, child abuse, and other horrific deeds. However, if pictures of the naked body incite such a definitive negative and violent response from viewers, how is it that we, as humans, are still alive on this planet? Weren’t Adam and Eve naked in the Garden of Eden? Why is it ‘art’ when a picture of a naked woman, breasts full, holding her child by the hand, walking down a road in a Third World, underdeveloped country considered acceptable, but a woman , beautifully made-up or wearing no make up at all, wearing pretty under garments or completely naked is considered vile, and pornographic?
Evidence/Grounds – specific data or expert testimony
First, here is a list of names – see if you recognize any of them – Tiziano Vecellio, Annibale Carracci, Guido Reni, Christopher John Ball, John Carmichael, and RenÃ?© de Haan. Who are these people? What do they have in common? These men are famous for their capture of the human body in its most natural state – nude. So why are the works of Vecellio, Carracci, and Reni considered art, while the works of Ball, Carmichael, and Bauer are considered porn? All of these artists captured the object of their interest in the most common media of their time. The first three examples used paint or sculpture to show the naked body and the latter examples used a camera. It seems ludicrous to state that the viewing of nudity should be held responsible for the destructive actions of specific individuals. There is nothing wrong with being naked. We are all born into this world naked.
When did being naked become such a reprehensible state of being? The answer to that question could be linked to when Queen Victoria decided to take over the moral codes of her court and country. At that time, the prudish Victorian society deemed that nudity was a sin. Women were regulated to second-class citizens. A woman’s possessions were no longer her own, including her body. If a woman engaged in ‘immoral’ conduct, she was immediately branded a whore and cast out of society. A woman’s virginity was her most prized possession and without it, she could not expect to make a good marriage and keep honor in the family name. Because of this social mind-set, the art of the Renaissance was deemed scandalous and quickly hidden away. It is fortunate that much of the art was simply hidden away. It is likely that a considerable amount of art was destroyed due to its vulgar nature. Now again, hundreds of years later, a moral crisis has descended upon the citizens of the world’s most powerful country. The moral left, under the guidance of the Commander in Chief, George ‘dubya’ Bush, is demanding increased censorship on music, educational theory, and even art. This demand is encroaching on the civil liberties that many Americans have taken for granted. If parents take their child to the Museum of Art and expose him to the works of Titan or Reni, they are applauded for providing a cultural and historical background for their child. However, if that same family attends a Gallery show of RenÃ?© de Haan, they are condemned for exposing their child to the unhealthy affects of pornography.
Warrant – implied assumption shared by the audience
One implied assumption is in the way people in our country view the naked body. In most American families today and in years past, it is fair to say that the word “porn” is taboo. Pornography is an entity that we tend to discourage, view with distaste, and hide from our children. It is not uncommon to watch a young mother in the grocery store cover her child’s eyes if she sees a questionable photograph on a magazine behind the counter. On the other side of the continuum, many American families can be seen in art galleries, explaining the statue of David to their young child. What is the defining line between these two forms of nudity? The distinction is the perception of reality. Many people, around the world, do not share the majority view of nudity that the American society holds. Therefore, the American family is often portrayed as close-minded, arrogant in their own self-righteous beliefs. To what end?
Backing/Grounds – additional support
The word pornography is derived from the Greek word pornographia which means – “literally writing about or drawings of harlots) is the representation of the human body or human sexual behaviour with the goal of sexual arousal, similar to, but (according to some) distinct from, erotica” (Wikipedia, 2005). Unfortunately, the use of the word, pornography, is not accurate since it does not relate to harlots, or prostitutes in any fashion. A better, more current definition of pornography would be “any material (either pictures or words) that is sexually explicit “(West, 2004). This definition does not apply to the viewing Titan’s Venus or Section 31 of Ball’s portfolio. It is inconceivable to think that this form of art would create such a negative impression upon the viewer. There is nothing disturbing about these pictorials; nothing that should create feelings of violence, rage, or hatred.
Pornography and art are indeed separate entities. Some forms of the naked body can be considered questionable, as they are presented in a sexually arousing manner. In such a case, it would be fair to consider this type of depiction as porn. Whether or not it is a catalyst for aggressive behaviors is still to be determined. We can determine, however, that some forms of the naked body are presented in a way that is not intended to create arousal. These forms are merely a depiction of the human body in its most vulnerable form. In such an instance, it is fair to state that art has been created. This form of art should not be criticized and stereotyped; rather it should be embraced as part of an ever-growing culture and society.
Rebuttal – objective summary of salient weakness or questionable aspect plus defense of the argument
There are many statements and reports on pornography and its negative effect on the American family. The conservative perspective states –
“It undermines and destabilizes the moral fabric of a decent and stable society, by encouraging sexual promiscuity, deviant sexual practices and other attitudes and behaviour that threaten traditional family and religious institutions, and which conservatives regard as intrinsically morally wrong. Furthermore, pornography is bad for those who consume it, corrupting their character and preventing them from leading a good and worthwhile life in accordance with family and religious values” (West, 2004).
On the other hand, the liberal community voices loud concerns over being subjugated to censorship and individual choice. To state that the viewing of pornography is a deviant practice, a threat to ‘traditional’ family values, and that it is morally wrong, is to impose a positional view and force a compliance on another being that may not agree with that sentiment. Should children be exposed to pornography? That depends on your definition. If you consider pornography is a blanket that encompasses all forms of nudity as well as sexually explicit material, then the answer is most likely a resounding YES! However, if you are able to separate and make the distinction between art, nudity, and sexually explicit work, and provide reasonable explanations to your child’s questions, then your answer will likely be NO.
Qualifiers
Have you ever been naked in front of your child, parent, sibling, or even a friend? Does that mean you have forced those individuals to view live pornography? No, of course it does not. Is it reasonable to believe that if a child is taught the difference between modesty and exhibitionism, that he/she will likely not suffer the repercussions of a repressed and censored life-style? The educated, logical mind says yes. Is there an age where it could be considered inappropriate to allow your child to run naked through the sprinkler in the front yard? Yes. Unfortunately, the innocence of youth is often whisked away by the societal views on propriety, entirely too soon.
For as long as art has been in production, there has been an entity trying to hide the nude form, make it wrong, and turn the natural state of being into something sordid that should be avoided. “To end in beauty, we should now concentrate on a far more mitigated form of the destruction of beauty: the resistance against the erotic image” (Beyst, 2004). Art mirrors life, or is it life mirrors art? Regardless of the answer, nudity is not going to go away. No amount of censorship will end the photographing, the drawing, the painting, or the filming of the human form in its natural state. Call it art, call it pornography, call it whatever you want, it is not going away. We came into this world naked, we will always be naked, and we are all naked under our clothes.
Works Cited
Beyst, Stephan. “The Erotic Eye and its Nude.” December 2004. 19 November 2005.
“Definitions of Porn on the Web.” Wikipedia (2005). 19 November 2005.
West, Caroline, “Pornography and Censorship,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2005 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), 5 May 2004. 19 November 2005. URL = .
Websites used for gathering pictorial information.
http://www.cjballphotography.org.uk/
http://www.johncarmichael.plus.com/art-nudes/
http://www.renedehaan.com/
