I read an article in the Beeb this morning about how sex is portrayed in the media - specifically, how it is shown on TV. Here's a link, if you're interested:
http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20150720-how-tv-lost-its-sexual-inhibitions
Interestingly, one of the side-bar articles is for a piece on Seinfeld, which had as one of it's themes casual sex between the mid-aged singles of the world. There have been others, of course. But aside from talking about the struggles that single folks deal with when it comes to sex, it was all really just so much joking and locker room story telling... And perhaps that's because it sells, but it's also to kind of stay within the kind of prudish bounds that the TV world has set.
There's a fine line between doing something right and well, and doing something crass, base, and silly. I'm not talking about the subject matter - the scene in Schindler's List with the abuse and rape was just awful in it's brutality, but it was done well, and portrayed an aspect of life that far too many people have to deal with. I hate that scene, but that was the point.
And film, as the article points out, has long accepted the portrayal of sex and sexual encounters as an artistic thing. TV, on the other hand, has never been able to do that. Perhaps it's because driving a story line to something that intense requires a long time to achieve, something that is very near impossible to do in the course of a 25 minute episode, where the story line is broken by commercials every 10-15 minutes. You lose the tension, and then all you're left with is the jokes and the innuendo.
I am interested in the line between art and pornography (an academic interest, mind you!). I am not afraid of the portrayal of the human body. I believe that we were created in the image of God, and that we are all beautiful. I also believe that sensuality is part of the human experience, and it can be portrayed well. But again, there's a fine line. I also believe that art should flirt with that line, pushing the envelope between what people are comfortable with and what can be unsettling/upsetting. Art should strive to portray ideals and shed light on social issues. But, in the face of an ever-changing moral standard, and in the absence of a bright-line difference between art and pornography, I wonder about what is appropriate and what is not.
For me, it has to do with the quality of what is portrayed - the craft, the care, and the purpose of such a portrayal. If a particular portrayal has as it's sole purpose the intent of creating sexual feelings in the viewer, it's probably porn. If otherwise, it may have merit as an artistic expression. I have seen porn (not much - not really my thing - but I have seen some) and it makes me feel sad and disgusted. I see art that is beautiful, which can also be sad and revolting, but... well, it's hard to quantify, but it's clear... I feel better as a result of seeing art - informed, improved, progressed - while porn leaves me feeling disappointed and appalled...
I say nothing of the impact that porn has on men and women in the world, and the way that gratuitous portrayals of sex degrades men and women alike... I also say nothing of the morality of sex workers and what that means, both to individuals and to society. Suffice it to say that as a feminist I support women's right to choose, but I also deplore the fact that this is the venue of choice (for whatever reason, but probably mostly financial/economic in nature) for women to pursue. I wish that the world could make other opportunities for women, so they wouldn't feel like this was the only/best option. It's a tough subject, and one that I'm fairly ignorant about, in all honesty.
http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20150720-how-tv-lost-its-sexual-inhibitions
Interestingly, one of the side-bar articles is for a piece on Seinfeld, which had as one of it's themes casual sex between the mid-aged singles of the world. There have been others, of course. But aside from talking about the struggles that single folks deal with when it comes to sex, it was all really just so much joking and locker room story telling... And perhaps that's because it sells, but it's also to kind of stay within the kind of prudish bounds that the TV world has set.
There's a fine line between doing something right and well, and doing something crass, base, and silly. I'm not talking about the subject matter - the scene in Schindler's List with the abuse and rape was just awful in it's brutality, but it was done well, and portrayed an aspect of life that far too many people have to deal with. I hate that scene, but that was the point.
And film, as the article points out, has long accepted the portrayal of sex and sexual encounters as an artistic thing. TV, on the other hand, has never been able to do that. Perhaps it's because driving a story line to something that intense requires a long time to achieve, something that is very near impossible to do in the course of a 25 minute episode, where the story line is broken by commercials every 10-15 minutes. You lose the tension, and then all you're left with is the jokes and the innuendo.
I am interested in the line between art and pornography (an academic interest, mind you!). I am not afraid of the portrayal of the human body. I believe that we were created in the image of God, and that we are all beautiful. I also believe that sensuality is part of the human experience, and it can be portrayed well. But again, there's a fine line. I also believe that art should flirt with that line, pushing the envelope between what people are comfortable with and what can be unsettling/upsetting. Art should strive to portray ideals and shed light on social issues. But, in the face of an ever-changing moral standard, and in the absence of a bright-line difference between art and pornography, I wonder about what is appropriate and what is not.
For me, it has to do with the quality of what is portrayed - the craft, the care, and the purpose of such a portrayal. If a particular portrayal has as it's sole purpose the intent of creating sexual feelings in the viewer, it's probably porn. If otherwise, it may have merit as an artistic expression. I have seen porn (not much - not really my thing - but I have seen some) and it makes me feel sad and disgusted. I see art that is beautiful, which can also be sad and revolting, but... well, it's hard to quantify, but it's clear... I feel better as a result of seeing art - informed, improved, progressed - while porn leaves me feeling disappointed and appalled...
I say nothing of the impact that porn has on men and women in the world, and the way that gratuitous portrayals of sex degrades men and women alike... I also say nothing of the morality of sex workers and what that means, both to individuals and to society. Suffice it to say that as a feminist I support women's right to choose, but I also deplore the fact that this is the venue of choice (for whatever reason, but probably mostly financial/economic in nature) for women to pursue. I wish that the world could make other opportunities for women, so they wouldn't feel like this was the only/best option. It's a tough subject, and one that I'm fairly ignorant about, in all honesty.
Comments