Ok, so you’re faced with a big billboard sized painted image of a naked woman, legs parted showing full view of her vagina, and covered in seamen. How do you feel about this? What’s your first reaction? How do we tackle this issue of pornography?! This was just one question of many that we debated extensively in our seminar with artist Jasper Joffe. Here I have written about the main points brought up in our discussion, raising questions at the same time that we may not have considered. Feedback and further debate is very welcome.
To begin with I wanted to open our discussion with what I found most people were questioning- the morality of such subject matter. It is a fact that painting has been subject to criticism throughout the centuries and in a sense this is why today we learn about these artists that have changed the course of art? I asked the question whether Jasper Joffe felt he was reflecting society by painting these confrontational truths. And I emphasise painting here because this is what he is doing- painting these truths. We all know what we can access online, it is constantly thrown at us, the photos and the videos, but by painting is Jasper Joffe opening up pornography in a different light, most certainly to a wider, more variable audience?
Those who simply want to access pornography for their own pleasure know where to get it. So by presenting it in an exhibition of paintings, it is being opened up for discussion, concerning other aspects than the obvious fact of whether it gets our juices flowing.
And so comes the embarrassing situation of viewing all this with one’s parents. Going to a gallery with parents to specifically look at these paintings is for intentions of discussion and cultural exploration. However, when watching a film with our parents we instantly feel uncomfortable when a sex scene makes an appearance, similarly we would not flaunt to our parents a keen observation of pornographic imagery. This leads us to think that the more controversial, dirty, or immoral the subject matter is, the more there is to say- the more we have to discuss, and in actual truth, the more exciting the discussion becomes.
It is no surprise that the younger generations of today are not as affected or shocked by it all. It could be argued that children are losing their innocence earlier as they see, hear and witness more shocking things than what their parents and grandparents did. Perhaps this is what we mean by saying that morals are slipping The issue of what media we use in relation to sexual or pornographic imagery was raised with much deliberation of how this affects our own personal comfort zone. Photography seems too crude, almost too close to the actual act. By painting, we take it away from this reality; we are in a sense creating something new. There is a blank canvas and we fill it. We create an image. Even if we copy from a photo or from life part of the process is from what we imagine when we create it with our own hand. It shows a manipulation in the slightest of ways. We take from a real life situation and make it into something different. For example if the model happens to be someone we know- a friend perhaps, in a photograph there is no doubt that we recognise them as our friend. But if that person models for a painting then the painting becomes someone different. We don’t refer to the person in the painting as the friend we know but more so as a different person, someone else, another presence- ultimately a person created in relation to the paintings subject matter- not the original model.
Another incredibly significant thing to think about is when Saatchi bought Joffe’s painting of Himmler there was uproar- a Jewish man buying a painting of a Nazi?! In this case however, he claimed it was because he liked the colours, not even knowing who the painting was of when he took an interest, and so this brings us to a rather confusing state of mind. How does a painting of a Nazi leader cause so much outrage and yet the paintings of pornography are dismissed quite casually. It’s perfectly normal to read about and see articles in newspapers or books about Hitler and the Nazi’s for example, as it is historical fact. But when we see photos of pornography we are ultimately disgusted. The painting seems to tone down the sexual content and at the same time be acceptable because it crosses over into the imagined fantasized world. In contrast a painting of a Nazi is immoral because once someone paints it, it involves a whole sense of interest and opinion, as after all, the artist is dedicating their time, effort and love of painting into something that is not so favourable.
If your friend told you that they liked to look at pornography you wouldn’t exactly disown them, but if they told you they liked the Nazi’s then you’d find this quite disturbing. To put it simply, pornography is normal, and murder is not. There is no room for fantasy or pleasure with the latter as there is with pornography, and yet this can also be turned on its head. It has become increasingly apparent that some people think Hitler was sexy, and that the Nazi uniform in general is somewhat sexy. This idolisation appears to be a normalising factor. Ultimately we are getting further and further away from the very routes of the historical fact.
Is this dehumanisation of people a good thing? Or does this lend itself to the animalistic behaviour of sexual activity whereby we look, we are pleased and so we express this pleasure? It is human nature after all, isn’t it? Our eyes take it in and our body reacts.
Picture the scene, Jasper Joffe sitting in a room with a group of people, the majority of which are female. We are discussing work that seems to portray the objectifying of women. Immediately one would think the united female voice would be hissing ‘sexist’ to the man, however this is where a strange shift occurs. For it appears that Jasper Joffe is concerned that we females don’t seem to be bothered. Joffe has become the feminist in a group of women. Do women feel empowered by the fact that we are subject to the artist’s canvas? After all, women have been the subject of painting for the majority of history, but never really the painter. Even now as there are many more opportunities for female artist, the male still dominate. We may feel proud that we are the mystery that men have long tried to solve, but surely we would feel objectified because that is all we are taken for? The women in these paintings may appear to be objects of use, but what if it is the man that is being objectified whereby women use men for their own pleasure and thus getting pleasure from knowing that she is giving him pleasure and so she is in control. Do women feel that they are superior to men because men cannot control their animalistic behaviour, or do women simply express their fulfilment in a different way? How would it affect the issue if it was a female artist’s work?
Has the debate of feminism run on for so long that people have lost all sense of the meaning? Being about equal opportunities is what makes the difference between a choice to stay home and look after the children or to go out and work. Are we blurring what defines feminism, losing our grip on the basic line? At end of day it could be argued that women want equal opportunities and the choices in life but still want a man to open the door. But this is just gentlemanly behaviour- another argument entirely, but one that is so often mixed up with that of feminism. There is a shadow overhanging this debate and ultimately we are left hanging in the middle of it all, clearly being an issue worthy of a seminar of its own.
