The Eroticism and Sensual Art in The Art of Pleasure

The text below is the excerpt from the book The Art of Pleasure (ISBN: 9781639199570), written by Hans-Jürgen Döpp, published by Parkstone International.

Distance permits freedom. Art, too, which can also represent a fetishistic production for the artist, affords freedom. It affords the freedom to play with fire without being burned. It appeals to the eye and permits toying with sin without having sinned. This freedom through distance can be noted when observing the different reactions of viewers when looking at pornographic magazines compared with those observing works of art: Have you ever seen the viewer of a pornographic magazine smile? A quiet cheerfulness, however, can often be observed in viewers of works of art, as if art brings forth an easing of the compellingly sensual. Those, however, who in a derogatory manner pronounce a work of art as pornographic, prove nothing more than having no appreciation of what is artistic in the depicted object. Turning away in disgust does not necessarily have to be a characteristic of an exceptional morality; such people simply have a non-erotic culture. Eduard Fuchs, the past master of erotic art, whose books were accused of being pornographic during his lifetime, considers eroticism the fundamental subject of all art. Sensuality is said to be present in any art, even if its objective is not always of a sexual nature. Accordingly, it would almost be a tautology to speak of erotic art. Long before Fuchs, Lou Andreas-Salomé had already pointed out the true relationship between eroticism and aesthetics: „The fact that artistic drive and sexual drive offer such extensive analogies, and that aesthetic delight changes so imperceptibly into erotic pleasure, seems to be a sign of a fraternal development, springing from the same source”

Félix-Jacques Antoine Moulin, eroticism — Félix-Jacques Antoine Moulin, 1851-1854.

When Picasso, at the eve of his life, was asked about the difference between art and eroticism, his pensive answer was, „But there is no difference.” Instead, as others warned about eroticism, Picasso warned about the experience of art: „Art is never chaste, one should keep it away from all innocents. People insufficiently prepared for art, should never be allowed too close to it. Yes, art is dangerous. If it is chaste, it is not art.”

Seen with the eyes of a moral watchdog, every type of art and literature would have to be abolished. If spirit and mind are the essence of humanity, then all those placing the mind and spirit in a position opposed to sensuality are hypocrites. On the contrary, sexuality experiences its true human form only after developing into eroticism and art (some translate eroticism as the art of love). Matters excluded from the civilizing process assert themselves by demanding a medium that is spiritually determined, and that is art. It is in art that sexuality reaches its fullest bloom, which seems to negate all that is sensual in the shape of erotic art.

Anonymous, c. 1890, eroticism — Anonymous, c. 1890.

Pornography is a judgmental term used by those who remain closed to eroticism. One may assume that their sensuality never had the opportunity to be cultivated. These culturally underprivileged people, who could easily include so-called art experts and lawyers, perceive sexuality as a threat even when it occurs in an aesthetically tempered format. Even the observation that a work has offended or violated the viewpoints of many, still does not make it pornographic. Works of art can offend and injure the feelings of others. After all, is it not the duty of art to annoy and to stir things up? The bottom line: the term pornography is no longer in keeping with the times. Artistic depictions of sexual activities, whether they annoy or please, are part of erotic art. If not, they are bland, inane works, even if harmless.