Aesthetic verses Kinetic (by T B)
In exploring the area of Les Halles, the art of the Pompidou and the Brancusi Atelier, and the pornography of Rue St. Denis have raised a major question: Are art and pornography different? James Joyce wrote, 'The difference between pornography and art is that art is aesthetic and pornography is kinetic.' He means that the aesthetic does not seek to inspire animal instincts in people, while pornography does. I agree with Joyce in that there is in fact a difference between art and pornography, although certain art, can provoke this sort of emotion. I think that the best medium for this sort of provocation in art is through film, both photographs and movies. It is to say then, that art has evolved with technology. Earlier in history, art was limited to not only mediums, but to social acceptance as well. Impressionism was not allowed to be displayed as art when it first came about, which makes us realize just how far our expectance of what art is has come. Not that present day’s modern art is always accepted- far from it in fact, but at least it is in a gallery and given the title Art. Even movies displaying exhibitionism and sodomy, that are shown in galleries as art, can be offensive, but in a good way. This offense challenges our beliefs and makes us think about where our values lay and why. Pornography, on the other hand, might offend, but it does not have the tendency to take us further mentally. No matter how far our acceptance of art goes, I think it is forever undeniable that what is seen specifically in the sex shops on Rue St. Denis is not art, but cheap commercialism at its worst.
