Pornography and Art

Annotated Bibliography

1) Thauvette, C. (2012). Defining early modern pornography: The case of Venus and Adonis.
Journal for Early Modern Cultural Studies, 12(1), 26-48,123. Retrieved from:
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1323917261?accountid=44858
In this article, author Chantelle Thauvette establishes that pornography is most of the
time referred to as an antithesis of art based on a distinction between the people that
perform as pornographers and those who are artists, and also the difference between sex
shops and art galleries, and the audience for both of them. Venus and Adonis was
Shakespeares first poem published, which author makes reference to and is mentioned in
the title of her article. Due to the excess of erotic content in the poem, the reader is
supposed to defend it as art or to dismiss it as pornography, especially referring to the
modern audience. She establishes that the poem might be sexually explicit, but this
doesnt necessarily make it pornographic, because something that is pornographic must
intend to stimulate erotic feelings, rather than artistic judgments based on aesthetics. In
other words, the categorization of an artwork depends on the readers intentions.

2) Uidhir, C. M. (2009). Why pornography cant be art. Philosophy and Literature, 33(1), 193-
203. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/220489004?accountid=44858
In this article, Uidhir establishes reasons why nothing can be pornography and art at the
same time. She says that if something is pornography, then it has the purpose of sexual
arousal, and that purpose is manner-inspecific, and that it is also explicit and obscene.
Then, she says that if something is art it must have a purpose that is manner-specific. She
defines the term manner inspecific as featuring the product to demonstrate its value to
the purchaser, referring to advertising. On the other hand, manner specific means that
there is a purpose constituted by an action and a particular manner to perform that action,
based on rules. She explains that no purpose is ever both manner inspecific and specific
at the same time; therefore, if something is pornography it cant be art, and vice versa.

3) Vasilaki, M. (2010). Why some pornography may be art. Philosophy and Literature, 34(1),
228-233. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/220550463?accountid=44858
In this article the author, M. Vasilaki, writes her opinion against Christi Uidhirs point
of view about pornography. Uidhir establishes that it cant be considered art because its
purpose is to sexually arouse the viewer, and its not something to be analyzed and
appreciated. Conversely, Vasilaki says that, as the title states, some pornography may be
art. She uses supporting information to contradict Uidhirs opinion about sexual arousal
by art being manner-specific and sexual arousal by pornography being manner-inspecific.
At one point of her article, the author characterizes the relationship between pornography
and art by explaining the link between food and culinary art. She concludes by defining
pornography as the writing of whores, and since writing is art, then pornography is also
the art of whores.