Common-sense might lead us to assume that porn is constituted by its subject matter; by what it is a representation of. But a little reflection calls this argument into question; for different pornophiles are notoriously various in what they crave; and the same material that seems so arousing under one set of circumstances can seem trivial or tawdry on another. If; then; we; at least provisionally; eliminate subject matter â€“ that which is represented in porn â€“ as its defining characteristic; as what is both necessary and sufficient adequately to define it; weâ€™re left with looking at the transaction that takes place in the process of accessing porn; that is; the process of representation.
Andre Bazin has noted that the process of photographic represntation provides; with minimal mediation; access to the real; to some otherwise unrepresentable part of human experience. The ubiquity of the come shot; could then be read as the guarantor of that authenticity. Yet animated porn; to say nothing of strictly verbal porn that dominated the first great efflorescence of porn in Victorian England; provides no access to that authenticity; unlike Bazinâ€™s photographic image; it gives us no degree at all of unmediated access to â€śthe real thing.â€ť Thus; if we take verbal; animated; and photographic porn as sharing the same â€śquidditas;â€ť the question becomes what does it give us access to. This has to be the great challenge for porn studies; partly because it itself is so crucial for our understanding of the relationship of sexuality to representation; but even more so because it is a laboratory for understanding the nature of representation â€“ especially pictorial representation â€“ in toto. In fact porn is the ideal laboratory in which to explore the relationship between cinema as an access to the real and cinema as a conventional code; a language.
And they were both naked; the man and his wife; and were not ashamed.
NORLIT 2009: Codex and Code; Aesthetics; Language and Politics in an Age of Digital Media; Stockholm; August 6-9; 2009
Bazin; AndrĂ©. â€śThe Ontology of the Photographic Image;â€ť tr. Hugh Gray; Film Quarterly; 13. 4. (Summer; 1960). 4â€“9.
Brooks; Cleanth. The Well Wrought Urn. New York: Harcourt; 1947. Print.
Gill; Brendan. â€śBlue Notes." Film Comment 9.1 (1973). Print.
Koch; Gertrude. â€śOn Pornographic Cinema. â€ť Jump Cut 35 (April 1990): 17â€“29. Print
Lehman; Peter; ed. Pornography: Film and Culture. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press; 2006. Print.
Marcus; Steven. The Other Victorians: A Study of Sexuality and Pornography in Mid-Nineteenth-Century England New York: Basic Books; 1966. Print.
UllĂ©n; Magnus. â€śPornography and its Critical Reception: Toward a Theory of Masturbation.â€ť Jump Cut 51 (Spring 2009): n. pag. Web. 22 June 2009.
Williams; Linda. Screening Sex. Durham NC: Duke University Press; 2008. Print.