|
Historically, erotic art is bogus. Somehow, somewhere along the line, we collectively decided that we knew what it meant to be “erotic.” “Erotic” was that narrow territory between tasteful and lustful, romance and sin. Dirty, but in a good way. But, regardless of how an artist chose to establish their own definition of what it meant to be erotic, they still had models do the talking for them. Models are beautiful, but they’re accessories; they’re paid to visually articulate the message of the artist. But anyone who has ever had sex knows that it isn’t always beautiful. It can be messy, loud, awkward, silly and fun. People accidentally fall off beds. People sleep on “wet spots.” People get leg cramps. I wanted to capture real sex with real couples. Like sex, sometimes my work is beautiful, sometimes it’s not. |
 |
Samantha Wolov
Historically, erotic art is bogus. Somehow, somewhere along the line, we collectively decided that we knew what it meant to be “erotic.” “Erotic” was that narrow territory between tasteful and lustful, romance and sin. Dirty, but in a good way. But, regardless of how an artist chose to establish their own definition of what it meant to be erotic, they still had models do the talking for them. Models are beautiful, but they’re accessories; they’re paid to visually articulate the message of the artist. But anyone who has ever had sex knows that it isn’t always beautiful. It can be messy, loud, awkward, silly and fun. People accidentally fall off beds. People sleep on “wet spots.” People get leg cramps. I wanted to capture real sex with real couples. Like sex, sometimes my work is beautiful, sometimes it’s not.
For the most part, my work is a response to a lot of social theory that I simply don’t agree with. It’s so easy to take advantage of the convenience of the art-porn binary by immediately categorizing sexual art into either group. A person may not be able to define “art” or “porn,” but they know it when they see it. This is precisely the problem. There are no clearly established definitions of art and porn, and because these definitions are infinitely different and subjective, we don’t have firm concepts upon which to base the art-porn binary. And yet, we maintain it. In that same vein, I don’t agree with the binary in that it’s art versus porn, denying the chance for overlap. Moreover, by pitting porn against art, you’re pitting the stigmas and associations around each against each other too. It’s the nature of the binary. If art is assumed to represent enlightenment, taste, refinement and sophistication, then porn, by nature of the binary, is assumed to represent a lack of morals, a lack of education and a lack of class. That’s not fair. People who enjoy pornography have every right to do so, and should in no way be made to feel guilty about this.
I want to take pictures that can’t clearly be categorized as art or porn to encourage people to reevaluate their definitions of the two, acknowledge the overlap between them and perhaps to help dismantle the art-porn binary. I’m not trying to proselytize, I’m not trying to change the world, and I’m not even trying to change your mind. I just want people to think about this. I hope, someday, people will recognize that art, especially erotic art, is fluid and subjective, just like sexuality itself. I like that ambiguity.
