68.43.19.251 (talk) |
|||
Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
<blockquote>"There is a photograph of an act of oral sex by the artist [[Man Ray]].... For some reason, I find that this goes just too far. Perhaps because it is a photograph and so real, while engravings or lithographs, give you a certain distance and idealisation. Man Ray confronts you point-blank here with something which should, perhaps, better remain intimate."<ref name=Ind/></blockquote> |
<blockquote>"There is a photograph of an act of oral sex by the artist [[Man Ray]].... For some reason, I find that this goes just too far. Perhaps because it is a photograph and so real, while engravings or lithographs, give you a certain distance and idealisation. Man Ray confronts you point-blank here with something which should, perhaps, better remain intimate."<ref name=Ind/></blockquote> |
||
[[Image:Male_nude_study_cb0-0_720_960.jpg|left|150px|thumb|Contemporary erotic study implying an early or subdued state of male sexual arousal.]] |
|||
The [[Canadian Supreme Court]] wrestled with the line between pornography and erotica going back to 1962's case ''[[Brodie v. the Queen]]'', which involved [[D. H. Lawrence]]'s erotic classic ''[[Lady Chatterley's Lover]]''. In its decision on whether Lawrence's book was obscene, the court noted that it "has none of the characteristics that are often described in judgments dealing with obscenity --dirt for dirt's sake, the leer of the sensualist, depravity in the mind of an author with an obsession for dirt, pornography, an appeal to a prurient interest, etc."<ref name=NP>[http://www.nationalpost.com/loveandsex/story.html?id=296028 Today's porn in it for the big titillation], Joseph Brean, ''[[National Post]]'', February 11, 2008.</ref> In 1992, the Canadian high court changed its 'dirt for dirt's sake' test until it ruled in the case of [[sex shop]] operator [[R. v. Butler]] that a work is pornographic if it is "degrading and dehumanizing."<ref name=NP/> This remains the central test in Canadian courts. |
The [[Canadian Supreme Court]] wrestled with the line between pornography and erotica going back to 1962's case ''[[Brodie v. the Queen]]'', which involved [[D. H. Lawrence]]'s erotic classic ''[[Lady Chatterley's Lover]]''. In its decision on whether Lawrence's book was obscene, the court noted that it "has none of the characteristics that are often described in judgments dealing with obscenity --dirt for dirt's sake, the leer of the sensualist, depravity in the mind of an author with an obsession for dirt, pornography, an appeal to a prurient interest, etc."<ref name=NP>[http://www.nationalpost.com/loveandsex/story.html?id=296028 Today's porn in it for the big titillation], Joseph Brean, ''[[National Post]]'', February 11, 2008.</ref> In 1992, the Canadian high court changed its 'dirt for dirt's sake' test until it ruled in the case of [[sex shop]] operator [[R. v. Butler]] that a work is pornographic if it is "degrading and dehumanizing."<ref name=NP/> This remains the central test in Canadian courts. |
Revision as of 18:55, 5 June 2009
Erotica (from the Greek Eros—"desire") or "curiosa," works of art, including literature, photography, film, sculpture and painting, that deal substantively with erotically stimulating or sexually arousing descriptions. Erotica is a modern word used to describe the portrayal of the human anatomy and sexuality with high-art aspirations, differentiating such work from commercial pornography.[1] "Curiosa" is generally used to refer to erotica and pornography as discrete, collectible items, usually in published or printed form.
Erotica and pornography
Distinction is often made between erotica and pornography (the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction)(as well as the lesser known genre of sexual entertainment, ribaldry), although depending on the viewer they may seem one and the same. Pornography's objective is the graphic depiction of sexually explicit scenes.[2] Pornography is often described as exploitative or degrading.[2][3] One person's pornography is another's erotica, and vice-versa. In other words, if a politician or priest finds a work containing only consenting adults "perverted", then it says more about the mental state of the accuser than the intentions of the photographer or viewer. [4] The dictionary also uses different emotive words to describe the same product. Erotica is "Explicitly sexual literature or art, concerning or arousing sexual pleasure." Pornography is "Writings, pictures, films etc. designed to stimulate sexual excitement." Even the dictionary's authors couldn't avoid bringing emotion into their definitions. Erotica is described using the gentle word "arousing" whereas pornography gets the "stimulate", a much colder, clinical definition.[5]
In December of 2007 one of the world's largest collections of pornography and erotica, the L'Enfer collection housed at the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris, France, was opened for the public.[6] Marie-Franoise Quignard, one of the collection's curators, tried to distinguish between the different elements in the collection:
"There is a photograph of an act of oral sex by the artist Man Ray.... For some reason, I find that this goes just too far. Perhaps because it is a photograph and so real, while engravings or lithographs, give you a certain distance and idealisation. Man Ray confronts you point-blank here with something which should, perhaps, better remain intimate."[6]
The Canadian Supreme Court wrestled with the line between pornography and erotica going back to 1962's case Brodie v. the Queen, which involved D. H. Lawrence's erotic classic Lady Chatterley's Lover. In its decision on whether Lawrence's book was obscene, the court noted that it "has none of the characteristics that are often described in judgments dealing with obscenity --dirt for dirt's sake, the leer of the sensualist, depravity in the mind of an author with an obsession for dirt, pornography, an appeal to a prurient interest, etc."[7] In 1992, the Canadian high court changed its 'dirt for dirt's sake' test until it ruled in the case of sex shop operator R. v. Butler that a work is pornographic if it is "degrading and dehumanizing."[7] This remains the central test in Canadian courts.
In Ukraine, the national expert commission on public moral protection derived criteria on how to distinguish pornography from erotica.[8] According to the order, pornography is a detailed image of coitus and naked genitals for sexual stimulation without any artistic or educating aims. For an image to be considered erotica, the number of images can not exceed 20 percent of the total, nor 50 percent of the whole of an image. Erotica is a portrayal “without open visualization of genital interaction”. Pornography, according to the national expert commission, is a portrayal of group and homosexual intercourse, scenes of sexual violence and/or sexual perversions.[8]
See also
References
- ^ Pornography - MSN Encarta
- ^ a b Erotica is Not Pornography, William J. Gehrke, The Tech, December 10, 1996
- ^ Don't confuse erotica with porn, Jug Suraiya, The Times of India, August 15, 2004.
- ^ Erotica Vs Pornography, Roy Wallace, Fotografics.org Online Magazine, 2004
- ^ Erotica Vs Pornography, Roy Wallace, Fotografics.org Online Magazine, 2004
- ^ a b Sex please! (we're French): Paris's dirty secret, John Lichfield, The Independent, December 3, 2007.
- ^ a b Today's porn in it for the big titillation, Joseph Brean, National Post, February 11, 2008.
- ^ a b Order How to Distinguish Pornography from Erotica, Mignews.com.au, February 27, 2007.
External links
- "Erotic Architecture"by Hugo Kim
- "Erotica and Pornography" by Edmund Miller, glbtq: An Encyclopedia of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Culture (website), New England Publishing Associates, 2002.
- "Irving Klaw, King of Pin-up"