A Pornographic Argument

Recently I broached a subject to my husband that we frankly did not seem to agree on: I

argued that pornography, primarily, is the only medium of film not purposely created as a

means of art or storytelling. First and foremost, pornography needs and uses the medium of

film as a means to project sexual acts for the specific purpose of sexual stimulation.

When I had to decide on a topic for my Film Studies dissertation at university, we had

previously covered the topic of pre-code Hollywood, the Hays and Production Code eras, the

rise of independent films and the eventual demise of the code entirely, followed by the

emergence of certification. Naturally, this led to the idea for my topic of dissertation to be on

pornography.

I found it fascinating to see a flow of change throughout the early years of film, with the

added influence of religion, politics and sociology so heavily contributing to the Western film

industry, onward into the next several decades. In the early years, celluloid film, much like

the arrival of the internet, was a wild west of filmic liberties. Though the Hollywood Studio

industry wasn't necessarily exploiting tits and arse on the regular, the early years were

certainly more provocative and with less of a care for censorship. However, the exploits of

actors and filmmakers off screen would eventually be enough to notably catch the attention of

the Catholic church (think Fatty Arbuckle's infamous trial accusing him of having raped and

murdered a young actress, today it’s considered questionable whether he was actually

involved). Studio films, reaching vast audiences and thus creating a won't-someone-please-think-of-the-children mass hysteria, would be called to clean up their act by following a strict

code (first referred to as the Hays Code, then The Production Code). This essentially meant

no sex, no violence, no nudity, no swearing and absolutely no heavy petting! Perish the

thought! In general, it was what we would now see as film certification, but curated to ensure

these aspects of film were not even depicted on screen.

Eventually, a new generation of filmmakers would wise up to the money-making machine

that was the independent film industry, freed from the control of a studio and using their own

money, relying on script over extravagant visuals and sets, whilst turning in a profit upon

distribution.

The Code was soon crumbling, with those religious and political influences dwindling, but

the sociological (as is usually the case) reflecting that which was happening at home. Post

war family structures were changing, divorce and sexual liberation were on the rise, unrest

and civil rights movements creating cultures of controversy.

And then there was porn.

Well, there had always been porn, but in the early 70s, combining the cheap filmmaking

strategy of independent cinema and the sexual appetites of society, porn was being welcomed

into the mainstream. Instead of creeping into a dirty little back street cinema to pleasure

yourself, you could enjoy the whimsy of pornography's "plots" with real sex for

entertainment. Yet the party wouldn't last and what initially appeared to be a new and

everlasting dream of making pornography mainstream, was usurped by emerging home

media and the general consensus that frankly, no one wanted to be watching a porn film for

entertainment. They wanted to watch it for masturbatory aid. Just like they had been in the

first place, except now they could do so in the comfort of their own home.

So perhaps pornography did have a brief period of being a means of entertainment, but it

always comes back to the main point of what pornography is there for: something to pleasure yourself to.

Of course, pornography is (and most certainly was back in the day), a sure-fire money maker

– though arguably through ad revenue than outright content purchases these days. Those

original independent filmmakers weren't necessarily inventing a new model of filmmaking,

they were applying the strategy pornographers had been using since they first put the

equation of sex + film = money together. Yet why put sex and film together to make money

in the first place? Because the demand is high - people need pornographic images (still, or

moving) to aid them in reaching an orgasm – and the numbers don’t lie!

Is art still possible with pornography? Of course, but I would argue it is an afterthought. The

AVN awards look like a lot of fun and I am sure a lot of effort is put into making a porno for

it to be celebrated and appreciated, whilst those filmmakers no doubt try to be as creative as

possible. Yet the crucial element and purpose of such a film is still to create a moving image

of sexual acts to assist the viewer in their quest for sexual gratification.

Perhaps I am talking about definitions here, since there is a reason Erotic Art is called that

over Pornography. You could make a film with real sexual intercourse, without the prime

intention of sexually satisfying the viewer, but to celebrate sex as a whole. However, if you

needed some quiet time to get your rocks off, which would you choose: art or porn?