detrimental to the furthering of women in society. This seemed so contrary to my interpretations of my father’s work. When my teacher used the term for the images I brought in, I didn’t know whether to reject the definition of the term or to reject the term outright. “Porn” is so loaded; like so many words, it has evolved and grown and become engorged with everyone’s individual ideas, to the point that it really has no singular meaning anymore.

If porn is anything that exists solely for the purpose of sexual arousal and pleasure then my father’s work is not porn. I know that is not the only reason my father makes his art and I know that is not the only reason people look at it because that is not why I look at it. But

even if it were, would that be such a negative? We do not eat chocolate because it has health benefits (oh I know, the antioxidant argument is quite compelling), we eat it because it gives us pleasure, that is all and yet, you do not see people protesting chocolate. Chocolate is not a word whispered between people in secret, it doesn’t come wrapped in a discreet package to be opened only when you are alone. Most people do not hide it under the mattress, and you very rarely will confront your thirteen-year-old son because you found a Snickers wrapper in his trash can. So what if porn has only one goal? So what if the women my father paints are pornographic. In a world full of tasteless “art”, I rather enjoy the chocolate of paintings. SDk

/ ‘Porn’ is so loaded; like so many words, it has evolved and grown and become engorged with everyone’s individual ideas, to the point that it really has no singular meaning anymore… If porn is anything that exists solely for the purpose of sexual arousal and pleasure then my father’s work is not porn. /

Art - Chastity the Puppeter by Alan Daniels
art
60