That Obscure Object of Desire

I think that some of her pictures are gross. This primarily is due to three reasons.First, they are deficient as pictures. I'm not stupid about photography; although not a professional, I've taken thousands of pictures, and published dozens. I know about lighting, composition, apertures, focus, lenses and such. As a film and music producer, I have worked with many top models, actresses, and singers. I also have developed a refined and discerning palate as to what counts as a "good" picture of her, and many of them simply aren't.Second, they place her in a context that either is cliché, or actually or implicitly derisory; for example, fondling a hot dog like a dildo, or being tied up. I wonder if she is comfortable with these types of depictions, as opposed to the absolutely gorgeous "glamour" photographs that she is fully capable of taking; she probably goes along with it, because she thinks it's what she's expected to do. Just like some of the writings that are attributed to her, which I have a hard time imagining her authoring, in the goofy lingua franca of porn,e.g., "cum inside, my pussy's ready."

Third, and this is a little complicated, they don't correctly iterate the true "her." We have been discussing the process of objectification that is an integral component in the creation of the pornographic work. It is the outcome of this process that makes possible the aesthetic interaction between the object (i.e., the woman) and the counterpart (i.e., the user – viewer – experiencer of the pornography). This being so, it stands to reason that the attitude, orientation and outlook of the pornographic object – the woman – is a strong determinant in this dynamic. Put slightly differently, a bored, listless or indifferent woman likely will be less adequate as a pornographic object than one who is happy and contented in her role as such; that is, one who is an active, willing, and indeed eager participant in the process of objectification itself.

This mode of engagement has variously been described as being "natural;" "photogenic;" "intimate;" or even just "into it." It may be nothing more complex than being a good actress, carefully attuned or calibrated to the performance nuances of the pornographic work. I am inclined to think there is something more involved to this, however, than simply playing out an imaginary role. Rather, there is a measure of intensity, genuineness or authenticity that qualitatively differentiates the true pornographic object from those who merely pretend to be such. This in turn is captured in the media event comprising the pornographic work, which is the medium of interaction between the pornographic object and her counterpart, the person experiencing it (i.e., the pornographic work.)

For this reason, the pictures of her that I like best are those that enable me to look straight into her eyes and form a kind of connection with her; I almost can tell what she's thinking, and let the real "her" emerge. Cezanne supposedly said of Monet, "Monet is just an eye – but God, what an eye! I am tempted to analogize this to the authentic pornographic object – because if it is the real thing, and genuine, then you really can see it in her eyes.^*

And so, my appreciation of her has been enhanced. I know the curves and contours of her body from first-hand experience; and, there, I can see them reproduced from every possible angle, in every possible orientation. I know her vocabulary of expressions, the way she poses, the way she smiles. I can see where she's had work done, and from the dates on the pictures, I even can tell you when. I probably could guess how she was feeling that day, if she's overweight or underweight. Knowing her in this duality – both intimately, and objectively, and riding the crest of the wave, the lacunae, between them – has been a rare and refined aesthetic experience, one that could not possibly be duplicated, and for which I am immensely grateful.

Throughout this process, I must say that I've had zero interest in (a) looking at pictures of other girls, which pictures are as freely and readily available, as pictures of her; and (b) even in looking at other girls in the same picture that she's in. Like a latter-day Paris, I think to myself: "maybe she's the prettiest girl in the world." As I look at her, and focus my attention and imagination on her, it's like the other people in the picture simply vanish. Just like the notes, the melody, and the rhythm, around the sound. Sometimes it's almost as though her image in the picture comes alive, smiling back at me, knowingly. I only have eyes for her. I'm not sure you can chalk this up solely to love; none of the other girls look at all appealing, and some of them are downright frightening. They look hard, and scary.

I think that the combination of the images being so provocative, and simultaneously so intimate, coupled with zero control over them, might lead to a certain kind of resignation, or even nihilism, and a blurring of the criteria of what it would be for something, anything, to matter, to begin with. How many other girls like her are there, with dreams of stardom, or, at least, notoriety? Each with a family, friends, lovers, hopes and aspirations, a retinue trailing her like a rowboat is tethered to a ship. Everyday they pour into Los Angeles, they get off the Greyhound bus near the corner of Hollywood & Vine, and then slink off into North Hollywood to meet their respective fates. Surely this is the porn star's ultimate challenge: not to succumb to the objectification, the commoditization, of her body; to be and remain a genuine person, Buñuel notwithstanding, amidst the iconography of images, and things.

* * * * *

^*In the interests of full disclosure, I should reveal that I have been to the Playboy mansion, but only as a guest at a party, not as a primary attendee. Also, I have become desultorily interested in porn stars – not in looking at their images, but rather, their personal lives. It is more of an academic interest, certainly not a sexual one (except for the one porn star I am romantically attracted to, who I am writing about). It's more like I imagine Degas' interest in ballerinas. I have a sneaking suspicion that 99% of porn girls couldn't care less about these issues – it's just something they do, non-reflectively. This is not a differentiator, though – it's probably the same percentage as with every other profession or occupation.

^* Though 90% of porn girls, even those with husbands or boyfriends, also are "escorts," which is a euphemism for a high-class prostitute. If, in such a relationship, on-camera boy-girl sex is prohibited, then how come it's OK for her to be an escort? This strikes me as being even more daunting, from an epistemological standpoint, because it's harder to pretend that it's "just acting;" he still has to contend with the reality that she's fucking other guys.

^*She once told me that the only injury to her body she has sustained because of her career as a model is a minor deformity to one of her feet, because of wearing stilettos for long periods of time.

^* The economic organization of porn websites is daunting. There are, of course, tens of thousands of them, each desperately competing for the attention of a consumer base that is dynamic, in that it changes dramatically over a relatively short span of time. The object not only is to get people – predominantly, guys – to visit your site, but also to monetize these page views by inducing them to become subscribers, or to purchase merchandise, or whatever. And there's only one way to do that, which is to become as outrageous and notorious as you possibly can. You simply have to commoditize yourself, become a pre-packaged object of fantasy, conforming in various particulars to some bizarre collective unconscious ideal of who you are and what you ought to be. You have to promote the bejesus out of yourself, ironically, in non-web-based media. It'd be like Disney deciding to launch a new animated character. I pity the poor girl who's beautiful and just wants to get some naked pictures taken of herself. Because what happens next has nothing at all to do with that initial impulse, however it was motivated – just like, in truth and fact, being a movie star has little to do with acting in movies, or being a pop musician has little to do with musicper se. Rather, it's about cultivating an image, a persona. She'd be better off to get an MBA in marketing, or being a brand manager at Procter & Gamble, THEN start posing for pictures.

^* On this analysis, it also is possible to reframe the notion of "pornography victim." Thetruevictims of pornography are (a) women who for whatever reason deliver (or are required to deliver) what we have characterized as an inauthentic performance as pornographic object; and (b) men who are required to endure the boredom and tedium of such a performance, in their role as aesthetic counterpart. "Bad pornography," thus defined, really is a species of false advertising, in that it purports to be something other than what it really is. "Good pornography," on the other hand, is that which artfully bonds the pornographic object to her counterpart in a fully-realized, interactive aesthetic experience.