PORN TRUMPS ART: THE EROTIC SELF-PORTRAITS OF EPICENIA MISS THE MARK FOR ART

LOS ANGELES - The debate surrounding erotic artist EPICENIA, known also as Will Griffith and his graphic self-portraits masturbating or performing oral sex on his knees has caught fire.

Griffith's homoerotic paintings meet the standard of art, while many believe his masturbation films and photographs are nothing more than his exhibitionistic, masochistic personality. Griffith, who is an openly gay ex-hooker, still comes across as an erotic artist, while many of his self-portraits are reflections of what he once did on the streets as a prostitute.

We have all, who know him, been drawn by Griffith's personal life. Alysyn Ayrica Bourque's 'Epicenia Trilogy' had us captivated, wanting more. She was Griffith's companion for three years and his dissatisfied lover. As a now-openly lesbian poet and writer,Alysyn chronicled her life with the "Sissy boy" artist, exposing his chronic masturbation while creating in his studio, his transvestitism, lack of masculinity as a lover and even made an issue of the artist's thin, tiny penis. It was brilliantly written, feeding our want for more.

It seems that when it comes to Griffith's self-portraits, he is still the cheap street whore.

His TRIBUTE TO MAPPLETHORPE series, where he is seen shoving paint brushes into his used and bought-and-paid for booty and masturbating are photographs that just barely pass the test for art. Still, the trashy projection of his hooker-mentality comes out in his self-portraits, overshadowing his colorful paintings and technique.

One reviewer disagrees, saying: "They are beautiful, sexually engaging, erotic. His self portraits are pale, frail and humiliating. His self portraits in drag, at least offer a beautiful boy in heels, until you look beyond the make-up and see the sadness of this artist and his life experiences written in his eyes like a Shakespearean tragedy. You won't find Griffith's photographic self portraits among those of his seductive transsexual, lesbian or sometimes gay, models, their legs inviting , their derrieres causing us to want them, their skin aglow and beautiful. Griffith seems to keep his pictures of himself away from his portraits of others, almost as though he is protecting the beautiful from his tainted, wounded self."

What is art?

People are debating nudity in art/photography, "where do you draw the line" between what is 'art' and 'porn'? The problem is that word 'you': it symbolises so many variables that it boggles the mind, and means that the topic often becomes very opinion-heavy. People were hinging their arguments upon links to their favourite photographers' nude work as if to say "hey, this stuff is good! Doesn't show any hairy bits, it's beautiful and definitely 'art!'' First, why would finding something likeable, comfortable or acceptable, qualify it as 'art'? Art can be anything: it is something produced that becomes a form of communication, whether it is skilfully produced, successful or not, liked by you or not.

What is porn?

Then, to define porn? Porn is a display of nudity or sexual activity with the main intention of arousing the viewer, its intention being to stimulate the sexual mind/organs rather than the intelligent mind. But sex is natural, and in no way inherently 'dirty', so first we must question exactly why that is wrong - by differentiating between 'porn' and 'sexual'. Not all nudity is sexual, not all sexual images are porn/erotica, not all porn/erotica is necessarily morally corrupt. And not all porn/erotica even involves always nudity.

The real reason that most modern porn is questionable is because of the way it increasingly reduces sexuality to a detached mindless sexual organ with absence of emotion and love, encourages sex as an expression of aggression, and also the imbalanced way it is women who are routinely commodified in the imagery. Sexual activity itself is not lewd. There is nothing wrong with picturing the naked genitals, even sex acts themselves - by definition, why can that not be 'art'? In an extreme illustrative example: even if an artist chose to film an actual porn scene, does not mean the result cannot be art (for example - he/she might be trying to make a point about the porn industry.)

Like anyone else I have my own tastes in nude art: what I make, and what I enjoy of others' work. Within the 'art' world though, I wouldn't dare to try strictly define 'what is art and what is porn' determined by what I, one tiny person in 7 billion of us, would like to hang on my wall or not.

In this writer's opinion, Griffith's film clips and his self-portraits do not meet the standard for art. While his paintings are brilliant and unique, Griffith has pimped out his own artistic reputation, selling himself short with his past as a prostitute caught on film.

In 2009, Griffith replied to his critics with this quote: "When my critics called me immoral because of my art, I said nothing. When they called me a whore, I said nothing. When they called me a social rebel, I again said nothing. The day they call me a politician I will say how proud I am to have been an immoral, socially rebellious whore and take issue with being seen as a politician. Nothing I have done or painted or said deserves such libelous name calling."

It's a good thing he doesn't mind the term 'whore', because that is how his art seems destined to be remembered.

-SEBASTIAN GARCIA, Art Critic

0 Comments