In response to criticism of pornography

In response to this criticism of pornography on another blog:

… The addict to pornography desires to be blinded, to live in a dream. Those in the thrall of pornography try to eliminate from their consciousness the world outside pornography […]. In engaging in such elimination the viewer reduces himself. He becomes stupid.

I wrote:

One can become lost in a cup of coffee, a glass of wine, thinking about whether one will get a pay rise, the rent, the mortgage, carrying anger against one’s beloved for some trivial matter, self-justification, ten thousand things that are not one self. Why single out pornography? It is only the image of the beloved, warped and distanced because one is separated from the reality. It is not the object of our identification that is at fault, but our identification with it.

Yes, pornography has dangers, but so does reading the newspaper or watching TV, or indeed reading or writing blogs. Any communication can become a substitute for reality, an end in itself. It is also possible for a piece of writing, theatre, song, painting, photograph to point beyond itself.

The line between art and pornography has been debated before, and it is an interesting question, perhaps without a definite answer. If you see beauty in what someone else calls pornography, then it is beauty that you see.

There is the intention of the artist or photographer, and there is your intention as viewer. Of course a definite result is more likely if these intentions coincide. And what kind of result do you want? But if you want to be inspired, be inspired.