This is an essay from Stanford University's Philosophy Department that reviews several hundred years' worth of philosophical arguments about whether erotic art exists (as in, it is either art or...
This is an essay from Stanford University's Philosophy Department that reviews several hundred years' worth of philosophical arguments about whether erotic art exists (as in, it is either art or it is erotic and therefore not art), and if it does exist, what makes something erotic and not merely pornographic or obscene? This is a fascinating question I've mentally ruminated on the last week and thought was worth
sharing.
In the last week, I have been using Instagram to discover new artists to follow. I've been fascinated with illustrators and designers, especially those who make use of digital tools from companies like Retro Supply Co. and True Grit Supply. Moreover, a few years ago, I found the illustrated pin-ups of Gil Elvgren and really appreciated their moment in American art, society, and advertisement that his work captures.
I stumbled across an artist who does vintage-inspired character illustrations and pin-ups. As the Instagram discovery algorithm pulled in similar artists and styles to my feed, I began to mentally sort art into three categories:
I liked this because it's just pretty
I like this because it's an art style I enjoy, and it also happens to be erotic.
I do NOT like this because it's merely obscene/pornographic.
A lot of lewd art feels treacherous, questionable, objectifying, or low-effort. As a result, I started to designate my own moral and ethical boundaries while consuming visual art that spans a variety of styles (including lewd or erotic). This led me to research the history of erotic art. Unsurprisingly, this is a well-debated and engaging philosophical topic. Through some online searching, I found this essay from Stanford detailing broad criticism and viewpoints.
This was an interesting read. I'm in the camp that erotic art can exist. Mostly because I feel that people actually put a lot of value on erotic content that makes them feel emotionally good. If...
This was an interesting read. I'm in the camp that erotic art can exist. Mostly because I feel that people actually put a lot of value on erotic content that makes them feel emotionally good. If you go to the lowest of the low brow and browse porn categories, there is a lot of pornography that is labeled as "vanilla", and it attempts to presents itself as being is some ways virtuous. You will also find a lot of people who swear by "amateur" porn, which they claim brings feelings of authenticity to the ordeal. I think in both cases the viewer is searching for a simulation of true love, or falling short of that, the simulation of the warmth of human intimacy, and I think people seem to find it. Maybe only in snippets, and maybe they have to spend a lot of time searching, but I think it is out there.
Anecdotally, I have seen erotic works that I think will stick with me for a really long time, and I've seen a lot that I've completely forgotten about within 24 hours. Which really isn't any different compared to paintings, or music, or books, and movies. I enjoy the works of Claude Monet, but not every Monet is the best Monet. I don't think it is a failing of erotica for not always hitting emotional depth, when plenty of paintings also fail to do the same. The existence of bad art does not diminish the feelings good art can cause you to have. I simply think the shallowness of an erotic piece is by error of the creator.
On the nature of the "aesthetics", I found it interesting that the 3rd Earl of Shaftesbury was brought up in the essay, because he is also known for discussing the concept of the "sublime", which is both beauty but also terror. He used it to describe the Swiss Alps, a thing that was beautiful to him but was also overwhelming and vast. A thing that contained an awe inspiring power far beyond the capability of man. The sublime is also frequently othered compared to aesthetic. While the erotic breaks the disinterested observation by being enticing, the sublime disrupts by invoking fear. It's call to action is not a siren's song, but an alarm bell to run like hell. Where the two differ though, is that the general population really venerates the sublime. It is the beauty of Mother Nature at worst, and straight up proof of the existence of God at best. The uncaring works of nature are not observed with the same scrutiny of depictions of humans fulfilling a biological nature. I don't necessarily have a point beyond that observation, merely that I find it amusing. Any sort of drivel I can possibly compose to wax poetic about the underrated nature of humans enjoying sharing intimacy with each other would still get btfo'd by this masterwork on the sublime by Carl Sagan.
Firstly, thanks for reading this and responding. I am in the same camp in that I hold the view that erotic art can exist. You raise an interesting point in viewers seeking erotic art that...
Firstly, thanks for reading this and responding.
I am in the same camp in that I hold the view that erotic art can exist. You raise an interesting point in viewers seeking erotic art that simulates the feelings of intimacy. The degree of intimacy in a work is a good proxy for its genuine-ness, or its effectiveness in achieving its goal of ascending beyond obscenity. To me, intimacy implies some shades of love. I think of Ansel Adam’s black-and-white photographs of the American West. Having visited these places, his work represents a sliver of the emotional impact that a massive granite wall can induce in-person. However, his reverence of place and landscape is imbued into his photographic prints. That is, I think that even the best artists can only capture a fraction of the love or intimacy of a scene they observe. Then, to truly render an erotic work of art, I am suggesting that there has to be a profound love toward some aspect of the subject or scene by the artist.
I see the appreciation of sublimity particularly in communities that track extreme weather. I recall the awestruck nature of meteorologists as they watched the rapid intensification of hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico during 2024. To see something reach the theoretical limits of a natural phenomenon was the most recent example of the sublime I can recall. Threatening, terrifying, but beautiful and enamoring still.
Thanks again for engaging on this topic. I find interpreting a work through a lens that tries to designate whether the feelings generated in the viewer preclude the work’s quality as art deeply fascinating. For me, it follows the arguments in Music: A Subversive History by Ted Gioia, which highlights how a lot of love songs were deeply disturbing to entrenched power structures, much like what was mentioned about 1700s France. It’s just interesting to see the parallels.
This is an essay from Stanford University's Philosophy Department that reviews several hundred years' worth of philosophical arguments about whether erotic art exists (as in, it is either art or it is erotic and therefore not art), and if it does exist, what makes something erotic and not merely pornographic or obscene? This is a fascinating question I've mentally ruminated on the last week and thought was worth
sharing.
In the last week, I have been using Instagram to discover new artists to follow. I've been fascinated with illustrators and designers, especially those who make use of digital tools from companies like Retro Supply Co. and True Grit Supply. Moreover, a few years ago, I found the illustrated pin-ups of Gil Elvgren and really appreciated their moment in American art, society, and advertisement that his work captures.
I stumbled across an artist who does vintage-inspired character illustrations and pin-ups. As the Instagram discovery algorithm pulled in similar artists and styles to my feed, I began to mentally sort art into three categories:
A lot of lewd art feels treacherous, questionable, objectifying, or low-effort. As a result, I started to designate my own moral and ethical boundaries while consuming visual art that spans a variety of styles (including lewd or erotic). This led me to research the history of erotic art. Unsurprisingly, this is a well-debated and engaging philosophical topic. Through some online searching, I found this essay from Stanford detailing broad criticism and viewpoints.
This was an interesting read. I'm in the camp that erotic art can exist. Mostly because I feel that people actually put a lot of value on erotic content that makes them feel emotionally good. If you go to the lowest of the low brow and browse porn categories, there is a lot of pornography that is labeled as "vanilla", and it attempts to presents itself as being is some ways virtuous. You will also find a lot of people who swear by "amateur" porn, which they claim brings feelings of authenticity to the ordeal. I think in both cases the viewer is searching for a simulation of true love, or falling short of that, the simulation of the warmth of human intimacy, and I think people seem to find it. Maybe only in snippets, and maybe they have to spend a lot of time searching, but I think it is out there.
Anecdotally, I have seen erotic works that I think will stick with me for a really long time, and I've seen a lot that I've completely forgotten about within 24 hours. Which really isn't any different compared to paintings, or music, or books, and movies. I enjoy the works of Claude Monet, but not every Monet is the best Monet. I don't think it is a failing of erotica for not always hitting emotional depth, when plenty of paintings also fail to do the same. The existence of bad art does not diminish the feelings good art can cause you to have. I simply think the shallowness of an erotic piece is by error of the creator.
On the nature of the "aesthetics", I found it interesting that the 3rd Earl of Shaftesbury was brought up in the essay, because he is also known for discussing the concept of the "sublime", which is both beauty but also terror. He used it to describe the Swiss Alps, a thing that was beautiful to him but was also overwhelming and vast. A thing that contained an awe inspiring power far beyond the capability of man. The sublime is also frequently othered compared to aesthetic. While the erotic breaks the disinterested observation by being enticing, the sublime disrupts by invoking fear. It's call to action is not a siren's song, but an alarm bell to run like hell. Where the two differ though, is that the general population really venerates the sublime. It is the beauty of Mother Nature at worst, and straight up proof of the existence of God at best. The uncaring works of nature are not observed with the same scrutiny of depictions of humans fulfilling a biological nature. I don't necessarily have a point beyond that observation, merely that I find it amusing. Any sort of drivel I can possibly compose to wax poetic about the underrated nature of humans enjoying sharing intimacy with each other would still get btfo'd by this masterwork on the sublime by Carl Sagan.
Firstly, thanks for reading this and responding.
I am in the same camp in that I hold the view that erotic art can exist. You raise an interesting point in viewers seeking erotic art that simulates the feelings of intimacy. The degree of intimacy in a work is a good proxy for its genuine-ness, or its effectiveness in achieving its goal of ascending beyond obscenity. To me, intimacy implies some shades of love. I think of Ansel Adam’s black-and-white photographs of the American West. Having visited these places, his work represents a sliver of the emotional impact that a massive granite wall can induce in-person. However, his reverence of place and landscape is imbued into his photographic prints. That is, I think that even the best artists can only capture a fraction of the love or intimacy of a scene they observe. Then, to truly render an erotic work of art, I am suggesting that there has to be a profound love toward some aspect of the subject or scene by the artist.
I see the appreciation of sublimity particularly in communities that track extreme weather. I recall the awestruck nature of meteorologists as they watched the rapid intensification of hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico during 2024. To see something reach the theoretical limits of a natural phenomenon was the most recent example of the sublime I can recall. Threatening, terrifying, but beautiful and enamoring still.
Thanks again for engaging on this topic. I find interpreting a work through a lens that tries to designate whether the feelings generated in the viewer preclude the work’s quality as art deeply fascinating. For me, it follows the arguments in Music: A Subversive History by Ted Gioia, which highlights how a lot of love songs were deeply disturbing to entrenched power structures, much like what was mentioned about 1700s France. It’s just interesting to see the parallels.