Vexed: Brief Points on Art, Voyeurism and Pornography
by Augustine Zenakos
In an article in The Guardian about a photograph by Panayiotis Lamprou, Portrait of My British Wife, on the shortlist of this year’s Taylor Wessing photographic portrait prize, the writer asks what he admits is a “vexed question”: “When does art become voyeurism or, indeed, pornography?”
The first problem with such a question is the precise way it is posed: the concept of pornography is not a direct extension – a kind of ‘bloating’ – of the concept of voyeurism, as is implied by the way the question is formulated. A consumer of pornography is not simply a less inhibited voyeur. In fact, whereas voyeurism may be an extremely ‘open’ concept that easily lends itself to metaphor, pornography is a very ‘closed’ concept that does not lend itself to metaphor at all. (Whereas there is a metaphorically voyeuristic, there is no metaphorically pornographic.) If I were to attempt a definition, I would suggest that pornographic is the kind of image where any narrative is rendered meaningless in favour of explicitness. (That is why In Thru the Backdoor 2 is pornography, whereas In the Realm of the Senses is not.) Voyeurism does not work in the same way. The voyeur, actual or metaphorical, inscribes him/herself in a narrative, the consumer of pornography is deprived of it.
The second problem with the question is that art and voyeurism are hardly mutually exclusive. More precisely, if we concede that something is voyeuristic, this does not preclude its being art. On the contrary, the element of voyeurism is crucial in countless Venuses and Magdalenes that we admire as great works of art. In the same way, the photograph is quite clear: the fact that this is the photographer’s wife renders our viewing act indeed voyeuristic, but this forms part of the artistic function of the work – it is not its opposite.
The third problem is that whatever is sexually explicit is not necessarily pornographic. The determining factor for pornography is not sexual explicitness – it may rather be approached through the question: what else is an image, apart from sexually explicit, what else does it do apart from revealing all? The reason we cannot consider many works of art as pornographic is that they are complex interweavings of meaning, including narrative strands that incorporate sexual explicitness as their integral part. On the other hand, what makes a pornographic work is its insistence to include only the revelation-by-itself, its eclipse of all narrative, of all other meaning. This is clearly not the case with this photograph.
It seems that a “vexed” question begs a vexed answer: sometimes you can’t get a right answer, unless you have asked the right question.
Post scriptum: Much more interesting than the question of art versus pornography is the question of gender bias in the photograph. Meaning that, although a wife can of course be territorial about a husband, the photograph is dependent on the fact that only a wife can be a true ‘possesion’. This is one of those instances where oppressive speech, though not exactly appropriated as is the case in activist discourse, is given as an a posteriori key to a reading of the work, in order to imply its own oppressive content. This is complicated further by the implication in the designation ‘British’, with all its allusions to northern sexual repression thawed by southern sexuality. (Though not ‘casual’ sexuality, as has been argued; more appropriate would be to say ‘uninhibited’: shaved pubic hair and unshaved armpits hardly spell out casualness.) All in all, this is fighting fire (stereotypes) with fire: a primal fear is contained in the thought of losing one’s women to the PIIGS. I have to admit I enjoyed it thoroughly.
I like this photo (even if its photoshoped) just cause her face is innocent and her bottop ‘parts’ spell out that they are not that innocent. It teases men to think again if they really can ‘know’ a woman just by looking at her face (in facebook perhaps, for example). I do not read any PIIGS in it but, I will make an effort to locate them.
nor do I see any pornography in this (obviously because I am not a man). the message is ambiguous and ambiguity creates an interesting artwork, but that is why each of us gives a different interpretation to it, we cannot agree that it is either pornographic or ‘sweet’ or ‘harsh’ or mockery or a statement about PIIGS and the Rich countries, cause it depends so much on the onlooker.
that is why I prefer other kinds of arts where the artists has made a small effort to represent himself or herself, AKA ‘romantic’ although or in political language ‘liberal’
No there is no pornography. In fact it is shocking how un-pornographic this image feels, and I am a man. Maybe it is because it is honest and direct. The voyeurism part is also removed by the women peeking into the camera lens, and making it obvious that she is aware of it, and her expression (face!) is the one I’d expect if she was sitting right across me, as if this image was taken for me. After seeing this image, I think that pornography has more to do with elevating the viewer then with showing stuff. Watching pornography is like being elevated to the rank of God. A good cure for all males with bruised egos, something I’ve always thought in the back of my mind. The food pan next to her also probably has something to do with this, another reminder of our mortality. And there may be other things I am not aware of at this time. Maybe the title… if you change the title you can start straying into pornography!
I like this, and I am willing to call it art – at least I think it deserves recognition because it makes us think and discover new perspectives, views, things, whatever… Thankfully this looks like relatively pure, unspoiled by non-artistic concerns to me. At least the motivation and the spirit are pure, or so I believe.
[...] το δεύτερο βραβείο στον διαγωνισμό Taylor Wessing. Θυμίζω το κείμενο του Διαχειριστή και σας παραπέμπω επίσης στο [...]
[...] From Augustine Zenakos’s blog, Trebuchet: [...]
[...] “The determining factor for pornography is not sexual explicitness – it may rather be approached through the question: what else is an image, apart from sexually explicit, what else does it do apart from revealing all? The reason we cannot consider many works of art as pornographic is that they are complex interweavings of meaning, including narrative strands that incorporate sexual explicitness as their integral part. On the other hand, what makes a pornographic work is its insistence to include only the revelation-by-itself, its eclipse of all narrative, of all other meaning. This is clearly not the case with this photograph.” [more] [...]