Fine line between art, porn

House Editorial

When a man takes his clothes off in a front of a group of people, more than one thing comes to mind.
"Run!"

"That is disgusting."

"Wow, that is beautiful art."

For most students in Ken Szmajgaj’s art class, the third opinion is more popular than the rest.

Nude models are a hot controversy among today’s society. Critics call it pornography, while supporterscall it art. Despite the connotation, there is obviously a fine line between the two — and perception is what draws that line.

When a mother takes a picture of her baby in the bathtub and puts it in her family album, is that porn? How about when she takes that picture and puts it on the Internet? Is that art?

Extremists might argue that all nudity is porn, but what really defines it is the perception of the audience.

When sophomore Dana Biedrzycki takes off her clothes in front of an art class, by no means is she contributing to pornography — she is art in its purest form. The audience is there to draw her, while porn is "designed primarily to cause sexual excitement," according to Webster’s dictionary.

Boedrzycki’s class audience is looking at her with their drawings in mind, not for sexual arousal.

At Auburn University, Brad Garland poses nude for art classes and says there is nothing sexual about it.
It is understandable why some might be more hesitant about modern nude drawings as opposed to the first ones dating back to 30,000 BC. Just watch today’s media and anyone can see the pornography scare — just like you could see the Red Scare in the 1920s and 1950s. In 2003, Virginia alone counted 163 offenses of pornography, a "crime against society," according to Virginia state police crime statistics. These days, people have to be extra cautious about the photos they take and the paintings they create because, if put in the hands of the wrong person, they can be misconstrued to a have sexual association.

Again, perception defines the line.

Next time you’re perusing the magazine racks, check out the cover of an art magazine and then compare it to the cover of Playboy. In your mind, what is the difference?