Lit poetry: Porn vs. the erotic

[Lauren Hynde]

For example. Manet's painting Olympia, which on the face of it was every bit as pornographic as the paintings of his contemporaries but he applied a context to his subject that confronted the hypocrisy of contemporary bourgeios society. He had political intent which raised his work above the mere pornographic, where the paintings of his contemporaries were painted purely to titilate. To the culturally educated the painting was aimed at, it was obvious he was shocking them to make a point which was reason for the indignant reaction to it. Context and intention set it apart and why I would not call him a pornographer. If you was a contemporary who was honest with themself about the hypocrisy in society it was not shocking but truthful. However, if you was so inclined you could just view it as pornography and who is to stop you.

You would not call him a pornographer even though his work had every resemblance to the pornographic works of his contemporaries. You're saying that content has nothing to do bearing on whether a work of art is pornographic or not. You're saying that is all a matter of individual interpretation.

I believe that what we disagree is on the definition of pornography. As Angeline noted, my definition is wide. The novels I named before are pornographic; jd4george's poem is pornographic; Manet's Olympia is pornographic. They're all pornographic and more. The fact that they have political intent is added to the fact that they are pornographic, doesn't separate them from it. On the contrary, much of their power come from being pornographic.

The difference between you and me is that I would never say this or that piece is "merely pornographic", or "just pornographic". That would be to make a moral judgement on pornography itself, it would be the equivalent of saying "nothing good can ever come from there", and it would bring us a step closer to a censor-state.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

I've just shot myself. On one level I find myself agreeing with you. But the artist/writer has to use pornography with an intent to expose, enlighten, provoke or educate.

However to make a career of pornography as though every work has this intent I would find highly dubious. Going back to my previous post about Manet's Olympia. One Olympia can shock, two seems to be stretching a point, three seems the intention is to paint porn.

I know what you mean, and I never said - far from it - that all pornography has that intent to expose, enlighten, provoke or educate. That doesn't happen all the time, it doesn't happen most times, it doesn't even happen consistently.

My only contention is that it can happen, it does happen sometimes. It's a potential present on pornography that cannot be matched by its more softly-spoken cousin, erotica.

 

[bogusbrig]

The difference between you and me is that I would never say this or that piece is "merely pornographic", or "just pornographic". That would be to make a moral judgement on pornography itself, it would be the equivalent of saying "nothing good can ever come from there", and it would bring us a step closer to a censor-state.

I'm not saying ban pornography, god forbid! But I do say intention is important. Manet's Olympia, pornographic as it was, shocked and did not titilate. His intention was to shock and not to create a wank painting his contempories set out to paint. That intent made Olympia political while his contempories made no political impact other than to play along with the hypocrisy of contemporary society. If he was a pure pornographer without political intent he would have played along with the hypocrisy of contemporary society.

Nowadays with so much pornography freely available, I really do fail to see much political content in pornography. Maybe a writer/artist of quality will prove me wrong but I haven't seen any pornography that provokes a political reaction in me.

Perhaps I'm too much of a wanker.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

I'm not saying ban pornography, god forbid! But I do say intention is important. Manet's Olympia, pornographic as it was, shocked and did not titilate. His intention was to shock and not to create a wank painting his contempories set out to paint. That intent made Olympia political while his contempories made no political impact other than to play along with the hypocrisy of contemporary society. If he was a pure pornographer without political intent he would have played along with the hypocrisy of contemporary society.

Are you sure there were no people who just went home and masturbated to Olympia without a second thought about its political message?

 

[bogusbrig]

Are you sure there were no people who just went home and masturbated to Olympia without a second thought about its political message?

Sssh! Just between you and me. I did.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Wanker.

 

[bogusbrig]

Wanker.

Yep! The white highlight on her thigh is not paint.

 

[bogusbrig]

I'm now going to watch 'Une Liason Pornographique' on Belgium TV. I'll let you know if it has political intent or it is just wank material.

 

[ewopper]

would this be pornographic or erotic

Iwrote this recently

Let me Have it

There's a party in my pants
but only ladies with no drama
is invited to the dance
so if you're a sexy mama

that loves to be appreciated
what I have to give
is what you've so long awaited
and it's time we start to live

it's time for us to dance
the horizontal boogie
the dance of sweet romance
a sexy boogie woogie

lady it's our time
to make passionate love
so leave the bullshit behind
and let's lock loins like a glove

so stop procrastinating
and let's do the do
what I'm anticipating
is to make sweet love to you

lady it's your time
in fact it is your duty
to do what's on my mind
and let me ride that booty

so lady i said all that to say
i need you to satisfy this habit
so come on over here let's play
bring that booty so I can grab it

Ewopper

 

[twelveoone]

Undo emphasis? How is that done?

My position is not so much that "erotic" is afraid to be pornographic - although most of the times it is - but that it has no potential to be more than what it is.

Erotic is about sensual arousal, artfully done, subtle, etc, but no matter how you put it, it is ultimately about sex. And that's it. That's the goal and the limit of what erotic can and tries to be.

But pornography, it has a far greater shock capability, it is unafraid of itself. And more importantly, because sex is at the surface, immediate, raw, it means that there is an untapped potential there to use sex as a tool to express other ideals. Ballard says that "pornography is the most political form of fiction, dealing with how we use and exploit each other, in the most urgent and ruthless way."

There have always been erotic scenes in mainstream literature throughout the ages, but they were always regarded as moments of pause in the narrative structure, to relieve the tension, or establish characters. And now look at the clearly pornographic elements emerging on the work of some of the best contemporary authors (Ballard, Ellis, Welsh, etc) where pure pornographic scenes are used as vehicles to drive home a much deeper, critical message.

and this is so much better than:

Erotic is pornography without the balls.

isn't it? IT is so much nicer to see a reasoned thought out statement in a discussion thread than a sound bite (or slogan)

"Erotic is about sensual arousal, artfully done, subtle, etc, but no matter how you put it, it is ultimately about sex. And that's it. That's the goal and the limit of what erotic can and tries to be."

and this does not counter my sound bite, but rather suppliments it, eh?

"And now look at the clearly pornographic elements emerging on the work of some of the best contemporary authors (Ballard, Ellis, Welsh, etc) where pure pornographic scenes are used as vehicles to drive home a much deeper, critical message."

and here you are talking about "pornographic elements" used for other purposes, one could argue that it is no longer "pornography" as such, as was done in the mid 20th century trials of Joyce's, Miller's, Lawrence's, books, et al.

My point with Empson, is the more blatant the statement, the less poetic it becomes; it is in the act of discovery, rather than shock, that people become more aware of deeper messages.

Shock is too often counterproductive and has unintended consequences.

 

[CharleyH]

... is the more blatant the statement, the less poetic it becomes; it is in the act of discovery, rather than shock, that people become more aware of deeper messages.

Shock is too often counterproductive and has unintended consequences.

This intrigues me, and although I am not certain that I completely agree, it would make a damn fine thesis.


Sometimes, you have to knock the complacency out of culture in order for society to actually notice anything deeper, or perhaps even change. Shock is a part of any avant-garde, and without the avant-garde, controversial ideals/forms et al would not be capable of merging with the mainstream, and ultimately society/culture would never grow beyond a tiny corner.

Of course, I have only had one coffee yet, but I will think more about your statements, as they raise many thoughts for me.

 

[ewopper]

thank you for reading

thank you for reading so what do you say the poem is pornography or erotica

 

[CharleyH]

thank you for reading so what do you say the poem is pornography or erotica

Why do you pressume it is either?

 

[Lauren Hynde]

would this be pornographic or erotic

I think it has many more elements of burlesque than either erotic or pornographic.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

IT is so much nicer to see a reasoned thought out statement in a discussion thread than a sound bite (or slogan)

Might be much nicer to read, yes, but not to type at 1:30 AM. It was not meant to be part of any discussion, but a jab at a friend who already knew what I thought of the subject. Besides, it spurred a lot of discussion, so it couldn't have been all bad.

and here you are talking about "pornographic elements" used for other purposes, one could argue that it is no longer "pornography" as such, as was done in the mid 20th century trials of Joyce's, Miller's, Lawrence's, books, et al.

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

That's really the crux, isn't it? Works by Manet, Joyce, Miller, Lawrence, Ballard, Ellis, Welsh - they have every resemblance of pornography but, somehow, one argues they are no longer pornography as such - as if the word were an infectious disease carrier. We can't call them erotic, because they're certainly not within the realm of Eros, but we obviously can't call them pornography - a word set apart for the sleaziest of sleaze. So, we just call them what, hyper-realists? Naturalists? Or just call it art and hope no one notices the inconsistency.

I say no. They are pornography, patently, and they draw great strength from it.

My point with Empson, is the more blatant the statement, the less poetic it becomes; it is in the act of discovery, rather than shock, that people become more aware of deeper messages.

So you do understand my point. An overtly pornographic novel that carries a deeper message hidden under the superficial layer of gratuitous sex and violence can be much more poetic and effective than any novel that deals with the same subject open- and blatantly.

 

[CharleyH]

Erotica has no balls is my next fave saying. Can I quote you?

Might be much nicer to read, yes, but not to type at 1:30 AM. It was not meant to be part of any discussion, but a jab at a friend who already knew what I thought of the subject. Besides, it spurred a lot of discussion, so it couldn't have been all bad.


If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

That's really the crux, isn't it? Works by Manet, Joyce, Miller, Lawrence, Ballard, Ellis, Welsh - they have every resemblance of pornography but, somehow, one argues they are no longer pornography as such - as if the word were an infectious disease carrier. We can't call them erotic, because they're certainly not within the realm of Eros, but we obviously can't call them pornography - a word set apart for the sleaziest of sleaze. So, we just call them what, hyper-realists? Naturalists? Or just call it art and hope no one notices the inconsistency.

I say no. They are pornography, patently, and they draw great strength from it.


So you do understand my point. An overtly pornographic novel that carries a deeper message hidden under the superficial layer of gratuitous sex and violence can be much more poetic and effective than any novel that deals with the same subject open- and blatantly.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Erotica has no balls is my next fave saying. Can I quote you?

Always.

 

[Eleanora Day]

Always.

Buenos noche, senorita. I need 100 posts.

 

[CharleyH]

Buenos noche, senorita. I need 100 posts.

?Que pasa? Post away, with something to say

or at least something erotic or pornographic.

 

[CharleyH]

Always.

I don't change my sig line for just ANYONE! Thanks, love.

 

[Eleanora Day]

?Que pasa? Post away, with something to say

or at least something erotic or pornographic.

Venus in furs
tasted leather slickspit
pointed in a scream
release bound in bows
of lace-bitten remorse.

Beg its pardon.
Slap puckered kisses
down, down, thankful
with grimace
and restraint.

 

[ewopper]

to me it's just a poem

i have written several in that genre some really graphic but i find open minded people like them

 

[CharleyH]

i have written several in that genre some really graphic but i find open minded people like them

so why do you ask if so many people like it? Do you think you can handle my opinion?

Tell us what is so erotic or pornographic about it - that you should ask us and then beat us to answer with only your defensiveness as a response?

We can see you Hence so little response.

 

[The_Fool]

I need neither your angst
Nor your desire
To fulfill my gratification

Just bend over

The licks
I offer
Are not an attempt at pleasure
For you
But just a way to get juices flowing

In a manner of speaking

A few strokes leave me hard
As does your sex
Bare and pouting

Knees bent
To facilitate my desire
I slide along the crease
For a little lubrication

Then alter my aim
And glide in your resistance
Pull out a bit
And try again, getting somewhat deeper

I find my rhythm in the way
Your flesh moves beneath my hands
Slick with sweat

You muffled sounds
Are music lost in a pillow
That I tune out anyway
Lost as I am
In simple gyrations
A pistons movement

In and out
In and out
Rhythmic
Glide

Your wetness
Glistens on me
Mixed with sweat
As I slide home between you cheeks
Kneeded between my hands

That grab your waist
Holding you steady
For the frantic drive I feel
To pump it out
Drive it home

Sweat trickles down my nose
And pools in the small of your back
Till it becomes a river
And flows down your side
Seen by my eyes
That are sightless

Until closed
In that painful moment
When I’m deep within you
Tension rides along my spine
Ass clenched tight
Refrain
Release
Release again
And yield the tension

Dropping down upon your back
In sweaty gasps for air
I’ve forgotten to breathe

Deep breath
Let it go
Deep breath
And Sigh

Lifting from you
I slap your ass
As thanks
And wander for the shower

 

[twelveoone]

This intrigues me, and although I am not certain that I completely agree, it would make a damn fine thesis.


Sometimes, you have to knock the complacency out of culture in order for society to actually notice anything deeper, or perhaps even change. Shock is a part of any avant-garde, and without the avant-garde, controversial ideals/forms et al would not be capable of merging with the mainstream, and ultimately society/culture would never grow beyond a tiny corner.

Of course, I have only had one coffee yet, but I will think more about your statements, as they raise many thoughts for me.

I am familar with that arguement, am a little surprised as to what people have considered shocking, not discounting argument, only pointing out what seems to survive (or take in the mainstream) must have deep roots in the past.
As an example: Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring" took, Bartok's twelve-tone compostions did not.
Both Eliot and Pound did a lot of heavy mining of the past, I guess they will be around, I suspect what I know of "performance poetry" (not much!) will not.