#Also was this whole meta just an excuse for me to post some Cinderella gifs?

[ihaveonlymydreams]

On the problem of explicit representations of sex in art

(this is for @itspileofgoodthings so she will stop pestering me :p. Also I apologize for the fact that when I write my thoughts they come out in formal academic language. I am not this stuffy in real life I promise. At least I don't think so!!! *runs away*)

Disclaimer: This is not an essay about the morality of representing sex in art. It is an argument that the explicit depiction of sex in art is, almost without exception, a crime against the nature of art itself. So I'm going about this in two parts: I believe that explicit sexuality in art destroys 1) not only the integrity of the work, but also 2) the ability of the reader or viewer to perceive the nature of reality.

This all depends on a very specific definition of art - and if you don't agree with it, you might as well stop reading now (fair warning!). Art, as I understand it, (following Aristotle's definition) is an imitation of Reality (truth, if you prefer). Its purpose is to open our minds and hearts to the deepest truths of existence, and it does so by engaging our imagination and pleasing our senses. Art allows us to perceive the depths that are usually hidden from us by the nature of our everyday life, our tendency to grow bored and complacent and insensitive to the beauty and power of Reality. Art reflects Reality, but not by making a detailed realistic copy - instead, art exaggerates, caricatures, heightens the contrast, draws things out of the shadows, paints in more vivid colors, and uses a thousand different tricks and techniques to open our eyes again to what is REALLY THERE.

1) the integrity of the work

So a work of art has a purpose, like a window has a purpose - it opens up on some vista, gives us an insight into another human being, allows us to imaginatively enter into experiences we've never had. Imagination is the tool that takes us out of ourselves and lets us see Reality. What it's not intended to do, in art, is to make us prisoners of our own selves and our own emotions. This is the first problem raised by the depiction of sex in art - is it so explicit that, rather than being drawn out of the self into Reality, the reader or viewer is drawn back into the self? If so, then it is no longer art but pornography. (I acknowledge, of course, that different people have different sensitivities - so the majority must be considered, not any individual.) Pornography in art, as I'm using the term, occurs at any moment when the (average) reader or viewer is 1) distracted from the story by a powerful physical or emotional reaction and then 2) finds that the story becomes a tool for the amplification and satiation of that response. To recapitulate: art is a window from the self into Reality; the moment it becomes a mirror or a tool of the self, it ceases to be art and becomes a kind of pornography, a self-indulgence that traps the person firmly inside of their own experience. When that happens, the integrity of the work of art is destroyed. For instance, the reader is no longer interested in the characters for their own sake or for the sake of the truth revealed through them. The work of art, this precious and unique creation that reflects Reality in its own particular way, is reduced to a tool that scratches an itch.

I understand, of course, where the temptation to write or otherwise portray these scenes comes from. On some level we all know there is some profound truth to be found in the experience of sex between two people who love each other. However, ironically, the more an artist attempts to get at the Reality of sex by explicit imitation, the more the truth of it slips away from them. In fact, the worst offenders of this kind are often female writers, who want so badly to give you the emotional truth of sex that they destroy their own art in the process - sex scenes become the selling point and everything grows more and more mediocre. Why is it so hard to portray the Reality of sex? Well, in part because we are so susceptible to being swept away by our own sensations and emotions in this regard. I do believe that the portrayal of other emotions can destroy the integrity of art in this way - violence and rage, for instance - but sex, rising as it does out of the purely positive emotion of love, seems to need the most delicate treatment of all.

2) the distortion of reality

There is, however, a different way of portraying sex in art than the one mentioned above. This is what I would call the coldly objective. At first glance, this method seems less problematic: sex is portrayed factually or clinically, the reader or viewer is not distracted by any personal reaction to the scene; rather than distract from the work of art, the scene keeps the attention of the reader where it should be. There are, in fact, some cases where I think this approach remains artistic - but they are few. The problem with the objective method of depicting sex is that it, too, fails to express the Reality. Sex is not, or should not be, a cold and joyless thing. It is the supreme most powerful expression of the love of two human beings, a love that makes them desire to be one in body and in soul. To present sex as purely a matter of two bodies, then, is to neglect the spiritual reality. Human beings having sex are not just animals copulating out of instinct. To make it seem so is to lie, to obscure the truth, and thus to fail as art.

There is a subcategory to this approach, as I mentioned, and it has to do with those situations in which one or more of the characters involved actually perceive sex in a cold or animalistic way. Rape scenes, for instance, can be done in an artistic way - as long as they take care not to run into the problem of pornography. In those cases, a cold and objective presentation can adequately reflect the truth of what is happening. The same can be said of scenes where disgust or horror is the emotional response - though that, again, has to be very carefully controlled. Even disgust can become self-indulgent, and self-indulgence is the enemy of art, which should be clear-sighted and outward-gazing into the dark and light of Reality.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion: the nature of art and the nature of sex both conspire to make the explicit and truthful depiction of sex a pretty much impossible thing. If art tries too hard to depict the spirit reality of the act, it falls into the trap of pornography and ceases to be art; if it tries to be objective and unemotional, it fails to be true and so again ceases to be art. There was a reason sex was considered sacred in older times: not necessarily, again, for purely religious reasons. Sacred means "set apart." The experience of sex should be "set apart" for those who can experience its truth, for those who love each other, body and soul, and desire union. Precisely because sex is union, both physical and spiritual, it becomes impossible to reproduce explicitly and directly.

But what does that mean? Is there no way to give a window into that Reality through art? I think there are many methods, in fact, that have been used throughout the history of art and storytelling - conversations being one. Just think about the lovely conversations between Jane Austen's protagonists after they confess their love to each other! True love's kiss is one of the most common conventions - as, in opera and musicals, is the love duet. And, of course, especially in movies - DANCE SCENES. It's my theory that dance scenes are the perfect artistic expression of the Reality of sex, because they allow you to see the spiritual and physical unity of the lovers in a way that doesn't distract from the truth of the art. There's a reason Shakespeare's plays always ended with dancing.

(Look at that and tell me it isn't more TRUE than a sex scene could ever have been)