I have been doing a lot of “research” out there on nudes, and only about ten percent of the stuff I come across I consider to be of any real value. The rest of the stuff is not good: either the images are too graphic, or the models are not that attractive, or they engage in stupid poses with strained expression on their faces. This is why art is often a good expression of eroticism. The artist can create an erotic scene, nude or situation, and endow that scene with whatever atmosphere he pleases. He can capture the mystery of eroticism in a way that photos often do not. Sometimes, if not far too much of the time, the models in photography just don’t cut it, and it seems as though the business of porn restrains a true and natural sensuality from emerging. The models may look unhappy. Or you can tell they are acting. It is one thing for an attractive woman to pose naked; it is another thing for her to convey to the camera some senses of true sensuality. Too often porn is nothing more than jack off material. Not that there is anything wrong with that; but in an attempt to distinguish different qualities of erotica, I think the higher quality stuff has to be separated from the lower quality.

With erotic art you have something more elevated, yet still erotic. It seems better, more substantial, even more real a lot of the times than a photograph. As I said above, the artist can create a scene of true sensuality and sexuality; we know there are no models pretending, perhaps acting because they are high on drugs, strung out, or whatever. As for more explicit art, no one is getting paid to fuck. The work is simply a creation of the artists imagination, whether drawn from his past or from a pure fantasy world. Porn is most often created to make some sort of profit; erotic art is usually created out of the need of the artist to create. In that need for pure creation, the result is often a deeper expression of sexuality than standard porn can provide. In that sense, good erotic art seems more real than standard porn.

Perhaps an objection to erotic art as something worthwhile might be, “Well, it is all fake. They are only drawings or paintings.” True, art is merely a representation of something, not the actual thing itself, but then again most porn is fake anyways. Most of the time the models are faking whatever sexual pleasure they are portraying. So really, all erotica is about creating the illusion of world totally awash in sexual passion. It is all to one degree or another fantasy. Porn exists ultimately as form of entertainment.

Good erotic art can be entertaining too, but it can also be something more, it can touch upon those passion which often remain hidden inside of us, locked away, afraid to express themselves, trapped in the prison of our own repression and societal fears. Art often touches those deeper parts of our minds and souls that remain hidden away. Good erotic art can fuse both the physical and psychological nuances of sex, it can even express the spirituality and beauty of deep and intense passionate love, and still be graphic, even dirty, and for me that makes it quite worth the consumption.