Porn or Art?: How low does low-brow go?

I’ve been thinking about high and low culture and this sort of links into what Rob has been saying. I’m gonna look at censorship and literature in my essay and I stumbled across a big essay from Neil Gaiman on his journal discussing the line between erotica and pornography. The blog post is entitled ‘Why defend freedom of icky speech?’ and it can be found here http://journal.neilgaiman.com/. In the article he states:-

The boundary between pornography and erotica is an ambiguous one, and it changes depending on where you’re standing. For some, perhaps, it’s a matter of whatever turns you on (my erotica, your pornography), for some the distinction occurs in class (i.e. erotica is pornography for rich people). Perhaps it’s also something to do with the means of distribution – internet pornography is unquestionably porn, while an Edwardian publication, on creamy paper, bought by connoisseurs, part works bound into expensive volumes, must be erotica.

In this article is also mentioned Lady Chatterley’s Lover and Ullysses, which have all been mentioned in the creative industries seminar. Obviously he is talking specifically about a law case (Handley) about artwork that is believed perverse but this threw up lots of questions for me of censorship in ‘low-brow’ artforms such as the graphic media but also in general for works now regarded as masterpieces. Is it just a question of everyone catching up? or are we constantly breaking the barriers of taste? Gaiman here refers to the law as a ‘blunt weapon’ and says 

 ’People making art find out where the limits of free expression are by going beyond them and getting into trouble.’

Its a really interesting article and something i’m looking into so let me know what you guys think.

Owen Johnson

Advertisement