This Is Not Porn; It's Art

Err, really?



That's Rembrandt's painting of Greek mythology; Andromeda chained to the rock as a sacrifice for the Kraken. The stamps of legitimacy for this are that it's by a recognized Renaissance artist and it's depicting a scene from classic mythology.

Okay, that's fine. It's also a painting of a chained up naked lady. Today, there are plenty of websites labeled "pornographic" that would show the same image, but not the same context, obviously. So let's see some more examples.



Okay, that's the extremely well-known sculpture of David by the classical artist Michelangleo. It's also a giant, naked man.

So we've established the artistic legitimacy attached to this sculpture, and for many, additional legitimacy would come from the statue depicting the biblical figure of David before he does combat with Goliath. Yet, this approximately 17 foot tall statue and it's rather oversized proportions might raise some questions from those unfamiliar with the statue's contexts and established legitimacies. After all, what is the point of a giant statue of a nude man? Art, yes, but what else?

Finally, consider this:



That's a statue from Daniel Edwards acting as champion for the pro-life movement. If you don't believe me on the statue's application, here's an article. This is a naked Britney Spears giving birth to her first son on a bear skin rug. More specifically, a naked Britney Spears on all fours in a rather sexualized position. Yes, she's giving birth, so that would leave sex out at that particular moment, but it certainly isn't the most conducive postion for giving birth. Her back and belly would be in enough discomfort without the unnecessary distortions that this statue would have her do.

But I'm not here to argue the best birthing positions, nor am I here to argue that these depictions are pornographic or not. I am curious as to the motivations behind these artworks. What was going through Rembrandt's mind as he painted Andromeda? Michelangelo clearly took great time and care to craft every part of his David statue, but did his thoughts range through many dynamics as he created different parts of David's body? Finally, what was REALLY going through Mr. Edwards mind as he created his sculpture of a recognized American sex symbol?

Are these pieces intended to be "porn" or do they become that way from the reactions they provoke? I'm thinking that many things that are considered art could also be constitued as "porn" from certain standpoints. "Porn" has its obvious negative connotation. "Art" has an altogether different and ambiguous connotation. Do these definitions apply to the motives behind the artists, the reactions to the pieces, or a combination? Just something to chew on beside the champagne or x-rated video people might enjoy this fine New Years Eve. Cheers!