Well, etymologically speaking, the word derives from the Greek πορνογραφία (pornographia), which derives from the Greek words πόρνη (pornē, “prostitute” and pornea, “protitution”), and γράφω (graphō, “I write or record,” derived meaning “illustration,” cf. “graph”), and the suffix -ία (-ia, meaning “state of,” “property of,” or “place of”), thus meaning “a written description or illustration of prostitutes or prostitution.”
Fair enough. What else? Well, porn is usually separated from art in that it’s meant to arouse. But that’s a loaded question since a lot of art is meant to arouse as well. Also, definitions of what is obscene and what isn’t is also hard to define. What’s even more difficult is to define art, especially these days.
More to come, where we will talk about ‘erotic art’. For example, Paul Avril, the dirty old man responsible for the illustration below. Is it art? Sure is. Does it titillate? Give you a boner? To me, it actually does, yes.
Let’s take it a step further. If photography is an art form, how is it that erotic art and erotic photography are grouped in different categories based on their artistic merit and/or their variable proximity to actual pornography? Consider this photo. It’s incredibly well shot, and includes all the necessary components of a good shot: composition, lighting, makeup, etc. But this would not be considered art by any means, and probably doesn’t even pass the test to be called ‘erotic art’. Why? Just because blondie has a dick in her ass? Maybe. Tough call, you see?
