So the debate continues regarding what my work is.  To me, it’s pornography, pure and simple – i make images of people being frankly sexual the objective being the arousal and release (if they so choose) of the viewer.  Simple.  Okay, I do like to think my approach to making my porn is more thoughtful and individualist than the mainstream, but I don’t think that separates what i do from Jenna Jameson and/or Ron Jeremy  in any respect (except  they actually make money with their porn).  Still, it’s always interesting hearing what other people call my work, though I rarely agree with what they tell me.  As I write this, I’m in a studio with two people each with a different take on my stuff.  One person identifies my work as “intimate erotica” while another describes it as “glamor photography” (definitely a first).  Both are interesting interpretations, but neither is accurate in my view.

For a long time, I’ve thought the issue people have with my work is they enjoy and respond to my work on a level they might not when confronted with mainstream porn; which is exactly what I aim for.  There’s no reason you can’t aesthetically and/or intellectually stimulate people while also getting them off.  The idea that the prurient and the aesthetic can’t co-exist is an idea I take no stock in.  Unfortunately, it’s an idea that’s firmly entrenched in most people’s minds…no matter what I say or do to dislodge it.

As I write this, not 10 feet away, a photo-shoot is going on where a bound and gagged model is having multiple forced orgasms for the camera.  The concept is “Damsel in Distress” for a pay site.  Not my thing, but I understand a lot of people dig it and it’s a huge commercial dollar.  I’ve never tried to shoot that style, but i totally respect the skill-set involved on both sides of the camera.  The audience skew for this sort of thing is definitely coming to it with prurient intent (a heightened sense of aesthetic or concept would probably put them off it).  DID imagery is built (sometimes even custom-built) to arouse the viewers:  get them up, get them off, which makes it porn by definition.  The work I do is equally intended to trigger arousal, to get people off — I know because it often does that for me personally when I look at my more intense images.  Nonetheless, I’m constantly told that what I do isn’t porn — can’t be porn simply because of the approach i take to creating it; because of my process…because there is a process to begin with.  Ironically, the process that some viewers use to separate my work from the mainstream of porn is totally connected to the reasons why I want my work classified as pornography:  Once it’s established that porn can come from someplace other than the mainstream,  from someplace equally creative, and prurient, then people with different desires can openly seek it out, ask for it, support it, demand it, create it themselves if need be.  As things stand socially, it’s pretty much impossible to insist on quality (or even customer satisfaction) from a product nobody will admit to using in the first place (but lots of people do).

It just occurred to me that even people in the mainstream of the mainstream porn industry, the people making some serious coin at it, tend to avoid calling their work pornography.  The last time I heard anyone from the mainstream discussing what they do, the term “adult industry” seemed to be the euphemism of choice.  I find myself wondering what their definition of porn is…And what they’d make of what I’m doing, as well as what they would call my work.  Anybody know any “adult performers” I can ask?