Columns

It’s hard to draw boundaries between art and pornography when representing sex. Erotica seems to go back forever - the earliest known man-made sculpture is the 26,000-year-old “Venus of Willendorf”, widely interpreted as a fertility symbol with its large breasts and accentuated vulva. In our context, there is nothing at all pornographic about it. It appears to begin a very long history of “Venus” figures being used to celebrate the God-given human form and act, presumably, as a divine medium to increase fertility - our most primordial human desire. But could this sexy, voluptuous little sculpture once have been held in the left hand while cave people sat in their stone masturbatoriums having a fap with their right? The beauty of this piece is that we’ll never know for sure, which is probably a lucky thing considering our latest trend towards the supposed sexiness of hairlessness.

So how do we differentiate between a celebration of sex and media which is produced primarily to get off on? Or, to be a classy wanker, can porn be seen as art? Well, the Japanese really rock with the erotic shit - not only do they have Hentai, but also its predecessor Shunga, those centuries-old woodblock prints which can include octopi giving a vaginal rub. In more recent times, the Japanese have made a name for themselves in erotic art again with S&M photographer Nobuyoshi Araki. But few realise that his work spans three decades and includes still lifes, the documentation of his wife’s death from cancer, and the 2011 earthquake in Japan.

As always, art and sex are great for challenging boundaries - even more so together. But how does this relate to the flat? Earlier in the year, I considered buying a photograph from the “Origins” series by Rohan Wealleans. It featured a naked woman confronting you with her legs spread, her vagina decorated by paint chips. Strictly speaking, I do not deem this pornographic, although the idea is certainly present in the cultural background of those admiring the piece. The values of the photo, to me, were a) the feminist and art historical connotations which I won’t even begin to describe, and b) it would seriously, SERIOUSLY challenge and confront anyone even slightly conservative who was observing it. In the end I settled for a more subtle painting which featured a black guy receiving head - which you only realise on, like, your fifth look at the piece. Maybe I’m not so liberal after all…