(IVARO), Dublin, IR/ ADAGP, Paris
© Succession H. Matisse, Paris/ Irish Visual Artists Rights Organisation (IVARO), Dublin, IR
© Ilya Mashkov
© Successió Miró, Irish Visual Artists Rights Organisation (IVARO), Dublin, IR/ ADAGP, Paris
© Pierre Molinier Estate, Irish Visual Artists Rights Organisation (IVARO), Dublin, IR/ ADAGP, Paris
© Edvard Munch Estate, Irish Visual Artists Rights Organisation (IVARO), Dublin, IR/ BONO, Oslo
© Emil Nolde Estate, Irish Visual Artists Rights Organisation (IVARO), Dublin, IR/ VG Bild-Kunst, Bonn
© The Georgia O’Keeffe Museum, Irish Visual Artists Rights Organisation (IVARO), Dublin, IR
© Max Pechstein Estate/ Irish Visual Artists Rights Organisation (IVARO), Dublin, IR/ VG Bild-Kunst, Bonn
© Dominique Peyronnet
© Peter Phillips
© Francis Picabia Estate, Irish Visual Artists Rights Organisation (IVARO), Dublin, IR/ ADAGP, Paris
© Estate of Pablo Picasso/ Irish Visual Artists Rights Organisation (IVARO), Dublin, IR
© Pierre et Gilles. Galerie Jérôme de Noirmont, Paris
© Sigmar Polke
© The Pollock-Krasner Foundation/ Irish Visual Artists Rights Organisation (IVARO), Dublin, IR
Art © Mel Ramos/Licensed by VAGA-DACS, New York, NY
© Martial Raysse Estate, Irish Visual Artists Rights Organisation (IVARO), Dublin, IR/ ADAGP, Paris
© Red Grooms
© Ker Xavier Roussel, Irish Visual Artists Rights Organisation (IVARO), Dublin, IR/ ADAGP, Paris
© Karl Schmidt-Rottluff Estate, Irish Visual Artists Rights Organisation (IVARO), Dublin, IR/ VG Bild-Kunst, Bonn
© Ulo Sooster
© Antoni Tàpies Estate, Irish Visual Artists Rights Organisation (IVARO), Dublin, IR/ VEGAP, Madrid
© Vladimir Tatlin Estate, Irish Visual Artists Rights Organisation (IVARO), Dublin, IR/ ADAGP, Paris
Tom of Finland 1986 © Tom of Finland Foundation
www.TomofFinlandFoundation.org
© Elena A.Volkova
© Kees Van Dongen Estate, Irish Visual Artists Rights Organisation (IVARO), Dublin, IR/ ADAGP, Paris
© Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts/ Irish Visual Artists Rights Organisation (IVARO), Dublin, IR
Art © Estate of Tom Wesselmann / Licensed by VAGA-DACS, New York, NY
Introduction
Erotic art or pornography?
“That which is pornography to one person is the laughter of genius for the other.”
The term “Erotic Art” is muddied by a miasma of ambiguous terms. Art and pornography, sexuality and sensuality, obscenity and morality, are all involved to such an extent that it seems almost impossible to reach an objective definition, which is not unusual in the history of art. How does one define erotic art?
This much is certain: the depiction of a sexual act alone is not enough to qualify it as erotic art. To identify erotic art just by its content would reduce it to one dimension, just as it is impossible to distinguish art from pornography simply by describing what it depicts. The view that erotic works are created solely for sexual arousal, and so cannot be art, is also erroneous. Does the creative imagination brought to erotic art distinguish it from pornography? Yet pornography is also a product of the imagination – it has to be more than just a depiction of sexual behaviour, or who would buy it? Günter Schmidt states that pornography is “constructed like sexual fantasy and daydreams, just as unreal, megalomaniacal, magical, illogical, and just as stereotypical.” Erotic daydreams are also the subject of erotic art. Those making a choice between art and pornography may have already decided against the former. Pornography is a moralising, defamatory term. What art is to one person is the Devil’s handiwork to another. The mixing of aesthetic with ethical-moralistic questions dooms every clarification process from the start.
In the original Greek, pornography means “prostitute writings” – that is, text with sexual content – in which case it would be possible to approach pornography in a free-thinking manner and equate the content of erotic art with that of pornography. A re-evaluation of this term would amount to its rehabilitation.
The extent to which the distinction between art and pornography depends on contemporary attitudes is illustrated, for example, by the painting-over of Michelangelo’s Last Judgment in the Sistine Chapel. Nudity was not considered obscene during the Renaissance. The patron of the work, Pope Clement VII, saw nothing immoral in its execution. His successor, Paul IV, however, ordered an artist to provide the figures in the Last Judgment with pants!
Another example of the difficult relationship between society and erotic art is the handling of the excavated frescos of Pompeii, which, until recently, were inaccessible to the public. In 1819, the Gallery of Obscenities was established in the Palazzo degli Studi, a locked room in the future National Museum, to which only people of mature age and high moral standards had access. The collection changed its name to the Gallery of Locked Objects in 1823. Again, only those with a royal permit were able to view the exhibited works. The reactionary wave that followed the unrest of the “Italian” Revolution in 1848 also affected the erotic collection of the museum. In 1849 the doors of the Gallery of Locked Objects were closed forever; three years later the collection was transferred to an even further removed section of the museum in which the doors leading to the area were bricked up.
It was not until 1860, when Guiseppe Garibaldi marched into Naples, that the reopening of the erotic collection was even considered; its name was changed to the Pornographic Collection. Over time, many objects amongst it were removed and returned to the normal exhibition rooms. The history of the gallery thus provides an overview of the morals of the last three centuries. Not every age is equally propitious for the creation of erotic art and its associated aspects. It can even become its confessed enemy. The libertine environment of the Rococo period, on the other hand, created a very favourable atmosphere for eroticism and erotic art. However, erotic art is not only a reflection of sexual freedom; it can also be a by-product of the suppression and repression with which eroticism is burdened. It is even conceivable that the most passionate erotic works were created not in spite of, but rather because of the cultural pressures placed on sexuality. In nature, the instinct-controlled sexuality of animals is not based on eroticism, but the culture of eroticism uses and depends on nature. Whereas sexuality as an imperative of nature – even in humans – is timeless, eroticism is changeable: as a form of sexuality that is culturally conditioned, it has a history.
Eroticism thus has to be understood as a socially and culturally driven phenomenon. In this case, it is the subject of moral, legal, and magical prohibitions, which are put in place to prevent sexuality from harming the social structure. The bridled urge expresses itself, but it also encourages fantasy without exposing society to the destructive dangers of excess. This distance distinguishes eroticism from sexuality. Eroticism is a successful balancing act that finds a precarious equilibrium between the cold flow
