Minimalist + two others

Free Shoot

Open Studio

Architecture

Lightbox

Landscapes

Nowhere to Run

(The last one felt eerie and so I gave it a name to fit.)

Night Photography

Light Painting

Light Trails

Moonlight as Source

 Open

The Line: An Analysis of Wanimal and Pornography in Art

   Is some art too pornographic? Can, and should, some art be censored?  Is art that depicts sexual acts not art? These have been looming questions in the art world since there was art. Michelangelo's work in the Sistine Chapel were famously criticized for containing nudity, stating that “all lasciviousness be avoided; in such wise that figures shall not be painted or adorned with a beauty exciting to lust.". Is there a line that separates pornography from art, and where is it?

   I discovered Wang Dong, better known as Wanimal, rather out of the blue. He has a website, but it appears his work was spread through Pintrest more than anything. He receives about 40 thousand page views per day, yet he appears to be largely unknown outside of China, however he has made himself quite the infamous man there. 

   Dong Focuses on what he calls "Raw, powerful expression to the origin of beauty", photographing mostly nude women, sometimes in the process of acts of sex with men or other women. His work has been called both "powerful" and "immoral" and "nudie pics". He famously had a model stand nude over a marble dragon in Beijing's Forbidden City, sparking outrage among Chinese residents.

   Dong says he takes inspiration from artists like Helmut Newton and Nobuyoshi Araki, both photographers famous for their nude depictions of women. What's odd to me, however, is that while these two are well respected artists Wang seems to be more of an insult. A pornographer who is crass and vulgar in his photos. He doesn't even have a Wikipedia page despite his appeared popularity. What separates the two?

Alice Springs

Saddle I

   Newton was a photographer for Vogue as well as an artist and it seems like his work at Vogue gave him this odd immunity, but also appeared to be more tame than the other two. He showed nude works, sure, but they felt less exploitative, more about the action than the form. Akari's work seems to focus more on the female form, occasionally in sexually provocative and bondage situations. Dong only seems to have taken Akari's work another step, and it's possible this extra step is what makes him different, possibly pornographic. 

Untitled

   It's hard to defend Dong's work as not being pornographic. One of his most interesting sets, MAKE LOVE depicts a man and a woman having intercourse, a rope of lights woven between them. One of the images in MAKE LOVE is a close up of the mans penis as it enters the woman, another of the man giving oral intercourse to the woman. This description sounds exactly like how a porno would go, however when you look at them it feels different somehow. Those feelings make me think it is different from porn, but it's hard for me to say I'm right as well. If someone wanted it removed from a gallery I would have a difficult time saying otherwise. 

MAKE LOVE

   So what about his work isn't pornography? How can this be even considered to be art? I think it's all about intention. When I look at, for example, Smoking girl I don't see just "an attractive woman" or "a nudie pic" I see a well crafted, well thought out image that depicts an almost surreal scene. To me it's obvious that Dong didn't set out to create "pretty porn" we set out to explore the female form, push it's boundaries and our perception of the naked form.

Smoking girl

   I'm under the belief that art say what you want it to say. When I see the photos in Bicycle I take away ideas about exploring both the world around you, and your own body. That these two can, and do, go hand-in-hand, and that this describes both men and women's journeys through life. On the other hand someone could look at these images as an excuse to take nudes in public and show them off, a bizarre and voyeuristic exploit of the women displayed. With that being said, I think that the intention of a work defines it as art or not. What you take away from Bicycle is yours to take, however Dong clearly had something to say. The fact that there is a statement, whatever it may be, is what makes it different than "Quincy and Jordan Get Cast for Hot Sex Scene". The reason "Big Booty Gone Wild" didn't appear in a solo show is because there's very little to say there. I believe that the moment your work is trying to say something, weather it be about beauty or censorship, it becomes a work of art, no matter how sexually explicit.

Bicycle

   This, of course, raises hard questions. What is stopping porn directors to start claiming their work is "artistic expression" and, at what point do we draw the line? Where do we draw the line of what can be taught in schools, in collages? My answer to these tough questions is it's a case-by-case situation. We can probably all agree "Hot Lesbian Gets Seduced by Man" isn't art, and won't be showing up in any film classes, but there is a home in art for the Wanimals of the world and that art history students shouldn't be barred from learning about the works of Nobuyoshi Araki. I think when separating these into piles the only question is "Was there a message?" and if the answer is a soft yes, it's art and shouldn't be removed, or called "immoral and distasteful".