Sunday, December 12, 2004

art of pornography

It is common knowledge that many debates have been made, a good amount of materials have been written, and a thick jurisprudence has been produced in the interpretation of the law on what is artistic work as distinguished from pornographic production.

And the discussion still goes on. And there seems to be no predictable end thereof. These engagements of reason cum emotion rest on a tripod: Those who benefit from pornography under the guise of art. Those who want to stop them from debasing art by pornography. Those sitting at the bench to listen and decide on the seemingly forever contending parties.

And to this writing, there appears nothing neither definite nor defined about this burning issue. Meantime, the public is invited and treated to sex galore especially in movies and publications—the young in particular.

The fundamental distinction between genuine art and plain pornography is not hard to make if all would only be reasonable about it, if all would first listen and search their conscience about the issue.

Whatever lifts the human spirit is art. Whatever excites the human flesh is pornography.

Whatever brings the human mind to marvel and awe is artistic. Whatever triggers the sexual instinct or arouses sexual desire is pornographic.

Whatever elevates the human sensitivity, inspires the human soul is art. Whatever causes either sexual excitement or repugnance is pornography.

While all the above are logical, however, those who profit from pornography—from those who produce it, the ones who are used as materials of the production, to those who peddle this—will surely have their counter arguments thereto. Reasons: greed and lust.

When will truth and reason ultimately prevail in this issue?
10 April 2001