This was a question posed to me by a young (21) woman on deviantArt, an art sharing art site that provides you feedback on your submitted art, photos in my case. Some found my photos pornographic, perhaps 3 people out of the 100 who provided comments in the week that I was there. The other 97 gave me very complimentary feedback. But this woman asked a serious question. I wanted to respond without being flippant. This is a question asked often. The responses are often obtuse. Basically people know pornography when they see it, they say. The courts in the US defined it in terms of community standards. My somewhat flippant response would be that penetration of a woman or a man by a penis is erotic; penetration of a body by a bullet or a knife or shrapnel, etc is pornographic.
But as I spent the day contemplating the question, one I have thought about for years, it occured to me that a good way to define erotica would be artful pornography. If the pornography is not artful. It is just pornography. I make erotica.
Unfortunately as I was about to reply I discovered that I had been dropped from the site. I antagonized those who called me an art thief. I am afraid I reacted rather aggressively at the accusation that my postings were not my own work. I should have been flattered. At least my content is so widely seen on the internet some thought I had just lifted the images off the web. Or maybe it is just that the women I shoot are so well known, like Christine Young, and Patricia Petite, and Sunny Lee, and Ravon and Kimberly Franklin, etc.
I hope readers of this blog have no similar doubts. Every thing here was shot by me unless I indicate otherwise, like Pussy Lane’s see-through thong.
Anyhow my ego was sufficiently stroked in the week that I was there. It did bring a lot of new readers to this blog and will do so for a while as my comments are scattered about the site with a link back to here. To anyone arriving from deviantArt, welcome.