Below is an essay written by Bessie Schofield, answering the question - ‘How does Linda Troeller’s photographic exhibition ‘Self Power | Self Play: 50 years of Erotic Portraiture’ challenge the moral boundary between art and pornography?’
All views expressed below are that of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Sexpression:UK as an organisation.
Linda Troeller’s exhibition ‘Self Power | Self Play: 50 years of Erotic Portraiture’ at the Museum of Sex, New York, explores female intimacy, pleasure and masturbation in an array of 60 explicit photographs. Whilst Troeller herself views the camera as a tool for sensual empowerment, (GothamToGo, 2022) using sexual pleasure as a way to feel well about herself (Troeller, 2012); the explicit nature of her photography raises moral questions on whether her work can be classified as art, because an image with highly explicit and sexual content is classified as pornography (Nead, 1990). Following Peter Webb’s claim that there is a “clear dividing line between art and pornography” (Webb, 1975) and the idea that the aesthetic and the erotic are fundamentally incompatible (Maes, 2014), Troeller’s photography becomes entangled within a debate as neither its visual aesthetics nor highly erotic nature can be denied.
Upon walking into the exhibition, one is confronted with an enlarged self-portrait of Troeller masturbating, wearing a glamorous sparkling outfit against a white fur rug.
Viewing this photograph one-dimensionally, it falls into the definition of pornography – showing a sexual act to cause sexual excitement (Collins Dictionary , 2023) – as she is making direct eye contact with the spectator whilst masturbating. Thus, as ‘pornographic art’ is argued to be an oxymoronic phrase (Kieran, 2001) and explicit sexual eroticism does not appear in great art (Dutton, 2009), the artistic status of Troeller’s photography is allegedly diminished; as following these critics, photographs with a pornographic nature cannot be considered art. Moreover, cultural theorists have repeatedly argued that portrayals of female nudity in art take a heterosexual male perspective (Berghman, et al., 2022); consequently, viewing the female form exclusively as a sexual object through the ‘male gaze’ (Mulvey, 1975). Thus, through Mulvey’s ‘male gaze’, the pornographic status of her work is further solidified, as Troeller can be perceived as a sexual object – lying on a fluffy rug in a sparkly costume under the stark light, like a pearl in an ornate box.
However, to view Troeller simply as a sexual object would be to undermine the artistic value of her photography. It is important to consider that this is not the recurring female nude created by a male artist conforming to their patriarchal ideas of female sexuality (Nead, 1990), but a woman using photography to express her sexual exploration (Troeller, 2012).
In ‘Silver’, Troeller holds eye contact with the spectator with a soft gaze rather than a confrontational one, like she is connecting with herself internally rather than performing for an audience. Her shoulders are relaxed, her head falling back into a relaxed and sensual posture, instead of a submissive pose like in mainstream pornography (Stewart, 2019). Through this cumulated effect, Troeller subverts conventional pornography as the sexual experience is not “emotionless or alienated” (Maes, 2011). Thus, instead of being confronted with a pornographic image, the spectator is presented a piece of erotic art, as the sexual theme being used to “explore emotions rather than merely actions” (Webb, 1975).
As previously discussed, when viewing this photograph from the objectifying view of the ‘male gaze’ (Mulvey, 1975), the stark white light creates an unnatural and inhumane atmosphere – only furthering the objectification. However, it is important to consider that the spotlight on her face illuminates her sensual expression rather than her genitalia. In Titian’s ‘Venus of Urbino’ (Titian, 1534) a woman lays naked, covering her genitalia and holding eye contact – creating a sensual depiction of sexuality rather than one of a grotesque or intrusive manner. Troeller reflects this into her photography by focusing the onlooker on her emotional experience during masturbation through covering the explicitness of her vagina, contrasting to a pornographic depiction which is solely interested in organs (Marcus, 2008). Whilst the viewer is forced to address the masturbation through the size of the photograph, the spotlight on the sensuality and warmth of her expression discounts her work as solely pornography as it is not one dimensional (Maes, 2014), but has the emotional and moral complexity of art (Maes, 2014).
Progressing through the exhibition, the sexual experience is further increased through the dim lighting and accumulation of intimate and climatic experiences. Unlike the flamboyant clothing and direct eye contact in ‘Self-Portrait, Silver’, the two foreground images in Figure 2 are unposed photographs of women exploring their bodies. The relaxed models are solely focused on their own enjoyment in their sexual experience, rather than the presence of the onlooker. This overwhelming impact of sensuality, in which the spotlights on the prints only accentuates, makes it hard to ignore the erotic atmosphere and allows the spectator to understand how Troeller was aroused on multiple occasions when taking these photographs (Troeller, 2012). This therefore fits the definition of erotic art, as the visual aesthetics of photography are accompanied by the “sensuality…touch and warmth” (Steinem, 1995) of the erotic. However, whilst this is a depiction of a sexual action to cause sexual excitement (Collins Dictionary , 2023), it contrasts the “violence, dominance and conquest” (Steinem, 1995) in mainstream pornography. This subversion of typical pornography tropes and instead emphasising the emotions and expressions whilst climaxing shows a direct parallel to Candida Royalle’s feminist pornography (Beggan & Allison, 2003).
Royalle believed that in feminist pornography, the focus must be on sensuality rather than explicit genitalia (Stewart, 2019). Similarly, Troeller includes highly explicit nudity in ‘Self Power | Self Play…’, yet draws the audience’s gaze onto the emotions experienced rather than the anatomy. The faces of pleasure and satisfaction which fill the exhibition, subvert the abusive and exploitative industry for sex workers who produce pornographic content (Scott, 2016). Therefore, Troeller is partaking in the rise of alternative pornographies (Zecca, 2017), as this is a “truthful, respectful and empowering representation of women and queer people” (Maina, 2014).
One thing that struck me when looking at the two photographs in the foreground of Figure 2 was the rawness and vulnerability, particularly emphasised by the immersive large-scale print. Their faces are rid of makeup, they are not wearing elaborate costumes or using props, but instead lying down on the calm, muted tones of the bed sheets. Within both of these photographs, their hands are gently placed over their chest like they are connecting with their heart or inner self – highlighting how this is a raw and visceral experience. Their eyes are softly closed, as if all they are worrying about is their own satisfaction, emphasising how in feminist porn it is “about HER experience of sex, HER pleasure, and HER orgasm”(Naughty, 2013)(Emphasis in original). Here, Troeller appears to be adopting the ‘Cinéma Vérité’ style of Royalle, where the actors bring a personal element to the pornography rather than a scripted dialogue (Stewart, 2019). Whilst their relaxed facial expressions evidently adhere to this, Troeller has decided to situate the models in the comfort of their own bed – further showing the fair and respectful treatment of its participants in feminist pornography (Stewart, 2019).
Thus defining Troeller’s images as feminist pornography, it could therefore be argued that Troeller’s photography is no longer art, as in Matthew Kieran’s ‘Pornographic Art’ he claims that pornography only has one aim and that is not one of artistic intent (Kieran, 2001). He states that pornography is “fantastical” and “bears no significant relation to reality” (Kieran, 2001). Whilst this may be true for the one-dimensional mainstream pornography (Maes, 2014), Troeller is showing how the boundaries between art and pornography are continually shifting (Nead, 1990), as she is combining the visual aesthetics of photography with the emotions and realistic representations found in feminist pornography (Stewart, 2019) that challenge conventional porn stereotypes (Gregory & Lorange, 2018).
Whilst these enlarged prints, located in the centre of the exhibition, have an eliciting arousal through the nudity and explicit sexual activity; the smaller photographs hung on the walls evoke a more subtle and elusive sexual atmosphere.
In ‘Self-portrait, Lloyd Hotel, Amsterdam’, the silhouette of Troeller’s figure is visible behind the condensation of the shower glass. On viewing this photograph alone, one might infer this is a woman carrying out her morning routine with the early rays of the sun breaking in through the back. However, in conjunction with the highly erotic portraiture situated centimetres from where this is hung; the condensation which masks her naked body only adds to the sexual excitement, through the anticipation of the unknown. Despite some famous erotic art like ‘Sukashi Shunga’ depicting explicit erotic scenes (Maes, 2014), not all erotic art needs to involve sexual explicitness (Kieran, 2001). Robert Mapplethorpe’s ‘Sensual Flowers’ (Mapplethorpe, 1988) are close-up photographs of flowers which resemble the intricate flesh and anatomy of the human form, even capturing the trichomes (hairs on the stem) as pubic hair; whilst Edgar Degas’ Ballet Dancers (Degas, 1874) initially appear as ballerinas preparing for class, he was truly depicting the sinister undertones of the sexual exploitation of young women (Flore, 2021). Thus, to overlook the erotic and pornographic nature of ‘Self-portrait, Lloyd Hotel, Amsterdam’, would be to ignore a key factor in erotic art, the intention to be sexually stimulating (Levinson, 2006).
The importance of the artists intentions in creating erotic art (Levinson, 2006) becomes more pertinent through the recurring image of water and nature in the exhibition. These photographs, out of context, are people connecting with water and nature in a serene and placid manner; yet, when hung in the highly erotic exhibition and considering how Troeller found sexual pleasure within hot springs and ocean waves “ignited [her] to orgasm” (Troeller, 2023), the spectator is encouraged to view these photographs through an ecosexual lens.
Ecosexuals view “the earth as their lover” (Sprinkle & Stephens, 2021) which resonates with Troeller’s photograph ‘Sacred Waterfall Harbin Hot Springs’. The unnamed model is facing the cascading water, their shoulders relaxed with an upright posture – fully embodying their nudity in a powerful stance. Considering Troeller’s own fascination with Annie Sprinkle’s orgasmic experience with water (Troeller, 2023), the contemplative stance appears to be a sexual awakening. This eroticism is further alluded to by the water which compositionally guides the viewer’s eye to the tattoo of a flower blossoming from her buttocks, solidifying the connection between human sexuality and nature. Thus, with this photograph evidently eliciting a feeling of eroticism, it can be classified as erotic art (Maes, 2014); however, the cool tones in combination with the misty aura create a calm and dignified atmosphere, which contrasts the violence and domination of mainstream pornography (Stewart, 2019). Instead, Troeller is portraying sexual eroticism through focusing on the experience of the model and their own pleasure – both things which feminist pornographer Ms. Naughty states are paramount in feminist pornography (Naughty, 2013). Moreover, Troeller is bringing the ‘cinéma vérité’ style of feminist pornography by allowing the model to bring their own identity into the photograph (Stewart, 2019), showcasing the model’s tattoo – their own permanent ode to ecosexuality.
In conclusion, through the highly erotic and sensual atmosphere evoked in Troeller’s exhibition ‘Self Play: 50 years of Erotic Portraiture’ it is undeniable that her photography is classified as erotic art (Maes, 2014). The crucial question, however, is the photography’s position in regard to pornography. Despite the exhibition fitting Collins Dictionary’s definition of pornography (Collins Dictionary , 2023), for example ‘Silver’ displays the sexual act of masturbation to cause sexual excitement; Troeller’s photography subverts the mainstream pornography which exploits and subordinates women (Dworkin & MacKinnon, 2018). Instead, there is a sensual and highly emotive atmosphere reminiscent of feminist pornography (Stewart, 2019) which disregards the sexist and misogynist conventional pornography (Morillas, 2019). Furthermore, by subverting the mainstream pornographic model which is typically made by men for men (Morillas, 2019) that silences women (Stewart, 2019), Troeller’s photography gives a voice to women through showing them in raw and intimate moments of desire – similar to the famous feminist pornographers such as Royalle, Ms. Naughty and Tristan Taormino (Stewart, 2019).
Therefore, to state that ‘pornographic art’ is an oxymoronic phase (Kieran, 2001), would be to hold a simplistic view, as evidently explored within this essay, the boundaries between art and pornography are continuing to shift (Nead, 1990). Troeller’s photographic exhibition ‘Self Power…’ subverts the misconception that the erotic and aesthetic are fundamentally incompatible (Maes, 2014). Whilst this exhibition does not fit the tropes of conventional mainstream pornography (Stewart, 2019), the raw and intimate sexuality focused on personal desire encompasses feminist pornography (Naughty, 2013). Thus, highlighting the ever changing boundaries of pornography and art (Nead, 1990) as Troeller’s exhibition ‘Self Power…’ simultaneously holds its status as feminist pornography and erotic art.
Bibliography
Berghman, M., Calkins, T., Eijck, K. v. & Yu-Chin Her, 2022. The Female Nude and the Naked Guy: Declarative and Nondeclarative Personal Culture in Aesthetic Responses to Artistic Nude Photography. American Journal of Cultural Sociology , Issue 2049-7113, pp. 1-125. Collins Dictionary , 2023. Definition of 'pornography'. [Online]
Available at: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/pornography [Accessed 10 April 2023].
Degas, E., 1874. The Dance Class (La Class de Danse). [Art] (The Metropolitan Museum of Art).
Dutton, D., 2009. The Art Instinct: Beauty, Pleasure & Human Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press .
Dworkin, A. & MacKinnon, C., 2018. Pornography and Civil Rights: A New Day for Women's Equality. Jstor, 2(3), pp. 516-518.
Flore, J., 2021. The Sordid Truth Behind Degas' Ballet Dancers. [Online] Available at: https://edition.cnn.com/style/article/edgar-degas-ballet-dancers artsy/index.html
[Accessed 11 April 2023].
GothamToGo, 2022. Photography Exhibition, Linda Troeller: Self Power | Self Play to Open at Museum of Sex. [Online]
Available at: https://gothamtogo.com/photography-exhibition-linda-troeller-self-power self-play-to-open-at-museum-of-sex/
[Accessed 10 April 2023].
Gregory, T. & Lorange, A., 2018. Teaching Post-Pornography. Cultural Studies Review, 24(1), pp. 137-149.
Kieran, M., 2001. Pornographic Art. Philosophy and Literature , 25(1), pp. 31-45. Levinson, J., 2006. What is Erotic Art?. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Maes, H., 2011. Drawing the Line: Art Versus Pornography. Philosophy Compass, Volume 6. Maes, H., 2014. Erotic Art. Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy , Issue 1095-5054, pp. 1-50. Maina, G., 2014. After The Feminist Porn Book: further questions about feminist porn. ResearchGate, 1(1-2), pp. 182-185.
Mapplethorpe, R., 1988. Poppy. [Art] (Robert Mapplethorpe Foundation). Marcus, S., 2008. The Other Victorians: A study of Sexuality and Pornography in Mid nineteenth-century England. Routledge, Issue 1, pp. 1-314.
Morillas, E. M., 2019. Gender, Body and Desire in Mainstream and Ethical Porn, Valencia: University of Valencia.
Mulvey, L., 1975. Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema. Screen , 16(3), pp. 6-18. Naughty, M., 2013. My Decadent Decadent: Ten years of making and debating porn for women. The Feminist Press at CUNY, pp. 71-78.
Nead, L., 1990. The Female Nude: Pornography, Art and Sexuality. 2002 ed. London: Taylor & Francis .
Scott, K.-L., 2016. Performing Labour: Ethical Spectatorship and the Communication of Labour Conditions in Pornography. ResearchGate, 3(2), pp. 120-132.
Sprinkle, A. & Stephens, B., 2021. Ecosexuality: The Story of our Love with The Earth, Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.
Steinem, G., 1995. Erotica and Pornography: A Clear and Present Difference. Wadsworth, Volume 36, pp. 233-236.
Stewart, R. S., 2019. Is Feminist Porn Possible?. Sexuality and Culture, Volume 23, pp. 254- 270.
Titian, 1534. Venus of Urbino. [Art] (Uffizi Gallery).
Troeller, L., 2012. Linda Troeller Self Portrait | Self Reflection. [Online] Available at: http://photoarts.com/gallery/lindatroeller/linda-nav.html [Accessed 10 April 2023].
Troeller, L., 2023. Self Power | Self Play 50 years of Erotic Portraiture by Linda Troeller, New York: On View at The Museum of Sex, NYC.
Webb, P., 1975. The Erotic Arts. 1975 ed. London: Secker & Warburg .
Zecca, F., 2017. Ways of Showing It Feature and Gonzo in Mainstream Pornography. Routledge, pp. 141-150.
Comments