CFP: ECONOMIES, POLITICS, DISCURSIVITIES OF CONTEMPORARY
PORNOGRAPHIC AUDIOVISUAL
Universit=E0 degli Studi di Udine
One of the sections of the VIII MAGIS =96 International Film Studies Spri=
ng School (Italy, Gorizia, March 19-25, 2010) will deal with the relation=
ships between cinema and pornography in the contemporary audiovisual land=
scape. The following Call for Papers was drawn up in view of this section=
.
According to Michel Foucault, starting from the 17th and 18th centuries, =
=ABthere has been a real discursive explosion about sex=BB (1). Within th=
e context of the use of repressive devices, the rising bourgeois society=
(2) has in fact encouraged the production of discourses about sexualitie=
s, trying to gather its truth and to establish =ABthe history of their co=
nditions of possibility=BB (3). In such a way, not only some forms of kno=
wledge have been constituted but also orders of discourse and technologie=
s about sex. This has favoured the birth of real truths about sex and abo=
ut its practices, delimiting pleasures, circumscribing identities and cre=
ating perversions and pathologies.
So, modern society =96 born in the 19th century =96 has invented pornogra=
phy, inciting and at the same time repressing the sexual pleasure. In par=
ticular, our society has produced a whole set of =ABdevices of sexual sat=
uration=BB (4)in accordance with certain processes =96 the mechanization=
, the urbanization, the invention of free time and =93public opinion=94 =96=
from which it has been crossed . Within this perspective, cinema and, by=
extension, the audiovisual media have not only given their fair share o=
f contribution, but they have also worked like a =93box of resonance=94 f=
or discourses that have been shaped by their respective operational sphe=
re of reference.
With the appearance of cinema, a new form of pornography has been introdu=
ced inside forms of knowledge and sexual pleasure. In fact, as Linda Will=
iams has noticed, starting from the first cinematic representation of sex=
(stag film), there has been not only a rapid =ABmultiplication of depict=
ions of graphic sexual acts=BB, but also a =ABconventionalized deployment=
of these acts within narratives=BB (5). So cinematic devices become the =
means through which it is possible to articulate the cultural paradigm =93=
pornography=94 =96 already saturated with pleasure, knowledge and prohib=
itions =96, with the purpose of attributing to it further meanings, proh=
ibitions and functions.
Starting from the last decade, thanks above all to the =93massification=94=
of the Net (6), we have encountered two phenomena. On the one hand, the =
state of pornography, its effects and its conditions of fruition has been=
recently reconsidered, thereby abandoning the very idea that pornography=
, as a cultural category (7), may belong to a precise net of texts, to an=
elite of consumption and productive systems (8). It has been understood,=
in fact, that pornography is not only a =ABcontested and problematic se=
gment of the media and cultural industries=BB (9); rather, it =ABleaks a=
cross disciplinary boundaries and blurs conventional distinctions between=
private/public, subjective/social, work/play, school/leisure, sexual/int=
ellectual realms of experiences=BB (10).
As a result of this way of thinking, the spectrum of the formalities thro=
ugh which pornographic discourse can be studied has notably widened:
=95 Pornography is connected with a vast sheaf of processes; its meaning =
lies not only in its immanent cultural and industrial productions, but al=
so in its symbolic dimensions due to the taste categorization, cultural d=
istinction and social regulation.
=95 The new interest about sexual matters promoted in Gay, Lesbian and Q=
ueer Studies has produced =ABa rethinking of the possible significances o=
f pornographic production and consumption=BB (11).
=95 It has been developing a theoretical reflection about the statute of =
=93subjectivity=94 and about its crisis, about the possibility of a re-pr=
ocessing of the humanist paradigm (12). In this context, reflections abou=
t human flesh and about the overcoming of the =93human=94 and =93organic=94=
, through body modifications, have became a prominent issue in contempora=
ry art and aesthetics (13) and they have fatally involved the pornographi=
c representation (14).
=95 As an effect of the rapid sequence of today=92s technological develo=
pments and the consequent proliferation of the pornographic discourse in =
popular cultural forms of production (from Hollywood cinema to the telev=
ision advertisement) sexual aesthetics, semiotics and social hierarchies =
seem to have rearticulated themselves according to a new conjuncture (15)=
.
On the other hand, we are nowadays witnessing the =93disappearance=94 of =
the cinema. Repeatedly, during the last decade, the most advanced theory =
of cinema has affirmed that cinema has dissolved; or better, as Francesco=
Casetti has recently put it, the cinema =ABis re-articulated in several =
fields, too different from each other to be kept together=BB, =ABready to=
be re-absorded into broader and more encompassing domains=BB (16). Such =
an observationlies at the core of several issues which realizes a series=
of interesting pluralities concerning cinema itself:
=95 Cinema is now spread across different media platforms (from the Net t=
o the satellite television),thereby abandoning its traditional places of =
presentation.
=95 Cinema lives inside a rather conspicuous series of supports (from the=
analogical to the digital), leaving its primordial film nature.
=95 Finally, cinema has found extremely different and diversified ways of=
production, manipulation and consumption (from industrial manufacture to=
fans=92 production), articulating social, economic and cultural function=
s which are not necessarily homogeneous.
The present call for papers =96 written in view of the next VIII MAGIS =96=
International Film Studies Spring School (Gorizia, March 19-25, 2010) =96=
invites considerations on the relation between pornography (considered =
as a cultural paradigm) and cinema (considered as an audiovisual form whi=
ch is undergoing fast changes) in conjunctural terms. In other words, it =
seems interesting to understand the relationship, within contemporary so=
ciety, between =93pornography=94 and =93cinema=94, interpreted as an over=
all articulated whole in constant search of a transitional balance of for=
ces (17).
In this sense the different proposals concerning the following lines woul=
d be particularly welcome:
A. On a specifically cultural level, given the quick growth of the commun=
ication channels and the equally fast development of new technologies:
1. What is the physiognomy of the cultural paradigm
=93pornography=94 in =
today=92s media system? What is the impact of telematic infrastructures i=
n the reconfiguration of pornography=92s modes of production, circulation=
and use? Which changes has digital and video technology produced in rela=
tion to the =93significant=94 structures (narrative, discursive, enunciat=
ive ones) of contemporary audiovisual pornography?
2. What are the features of contemporary pornography devices?
Is it possi=
ble to recognize some dominant representative polarities? How can one est=
imate the =93documentary=94 tension (and the contextual refusal of fictio=
n) expressed by wide sectors of contemporary pornography production? What=
is the relation between newer audiovisual pornography modes and on-line =
amateur pornography?
3. Which models of audiovisual pornography representation have
formalized=
the human body? Which stylistic schemes =96 iconographic constant factor=
s, similarities or differences =96 can we single out between the represen=
tations of human body in cinema pornography and in artistic productions, =
considered in a broad sense (from videoart to videogames)? How has pornog=
raphy production affected artistic theories and poetics, and the aestheti=
c reflection, especially those concerning human body?
4. Which role does cinema still play in the proliferation
of pornography=
=92s message? Does it still make sense to speak of the ways of consumpti=
on within pornography in conformity with the consolidated canons of the i=
nstitution of cinema? In what ways has pornography joined the mainstream =
cinema or the Art Cinema? What kind of infiltration has followed, and in =
conformity to which phenomenology? What is the sense to be attributed to=
the irruption of sex in contemporary audiovisual productions?
5. Which are the continuities and discontinuities between
experimental or=
underground =93historical=94 audiovisual production and =93independent=94=
telematic pornography (for example indienudes.com)? And which interlacem=
ents or superimpositions can be recognized between the imaginary of =93al=
ternative=94 contemporary pornography(for example suicidegirls.com) and t=
hose of contemporary artistic, musical, and videographic sub-cultures?
B. On a political-social level, given the multiplication of legislative m=
easures in a conservative direction, and given the rigid outlook adopted =
by religious and doctrinal authorities:
1. How has the repressive system organized itself
vis-a-vis pornography,=
especially visual pornography? Which national apparatuses, cultural for=
ces and social institutions have made a move to oppose its proliferation?=
What are, on a national level, the policies of the single nation-states =
towards pornography?
2. Which are the social discourses that are gaining currency
with regard =
to pornography? And what is the role played by these discourses in the ph=
ysiognomy of porn =93fan cultures=94? Do some =93resistance policies=94 u=
sing pornography=92s =93cultural series=94 aimed at pursuing their own g=
oals of social transformation exist?
3. What is the social role played by pornography in
contemporary imaginar=
y as a result of the molecular circulation produced in the Net? And what =
is, from a symptomatic point of view, the link between the propagation of=
today=92s pornography and the construction of desire (and social norm)?=
4. Which role do gender identities cover with reference to the
more rece=
nt policies of the promotion of sex through the cultural channels of por=
nography? And how are ethnic and racial minorities used within contemp=
orary pornography?
5. How does a pornostar spring up? And what kind of social
physiognomy do=
es she/he have at her/hisdisposal? What are the socio-discursive investme=
nts underlying the process of creation of the pornographic actor/divo? Is=
it possible to draw up a typology?
C. On an economic level, given the startling current devaluation of work =
and the corresponding celebration of the free market:
1. According to which operational models does the current porn
industry o=
rganize itself? For instance, which role does the author or production br=
ands play in the product=92s saleability?
2. Which role does the production sector of porn industry play
within the=
wide market of sex? How has its =93mode of production=94 been defined wi=
th respect to the other sectors of the market?
3. On which level does the =93artisan=94, =93domestic=94 and
=93local=94 =
economic structure linked to the production of pornography survive or pro=
liferate within the global financial system? For example, how have new te=
chnologies created or, in a Foucaultian sense, how have they stimulated t=
he =93amateur dissemination=94?
4. According to which strategies have traditional branches of
global or l=
ocal economy invested in pornography industry?
A practice of interdisciplinary research is encouraged, a research that c=
ould reflect upon the economies, the policies and the textualities of con=
temporary pornographic audiovisual, making use of testing categories take=
n from different point of views (historiography, cultural studies, semiot=
ic, gender studies, queer studies, economy etc.).
Deadline for paper proposals: 16 November 2009
Please send your proposals to:
(gospringschool /at/ gmail.com)
Enrico Biasin (e.biasin /at/ libero.it)
Giovanna Maina (g.maina /at/ gmail.com)
Federico Zecca (federicozecca /at/ gmail.com)
(1) Michel Foucault, La volont=E0 di sapere. Storia della sessualit=E0, F=
eltrinelli, Milano 2004 (1976), p. 19.
(2) See Donald M. Lowe, History of Bourgeois Perception, University of Ch=
icago, Chicago 1982.
(3) Michel Foucault, Le parole e le cose. Una archeologia delle scienze u=
mane, Rizzoli, Milano 2001, p. 12 (our translation).
(4) Michel Foucault, La volont=E0 di sapere. Storia della sessualit=E0, c=
it., p. 45 (our translation).
(5) Linda Williams, Hard Core: Power, Pleasure, and the =93Frenzy of the =
Visible=94, University of California, Berkeley-Los Angeles-London 1999, p=
. 151.
(6) See Piet Bakker, Saara Taalas, =93The Irresistible Rise of Porn: The =
Untold Story of a Global Industry=94, in Observatorio (OBS*) Journal, vol=
. 1, 2007, pp. 99-118.
(7) See Linda Williams (ed.), Porn Studies, Duke University, Durham-Londo=
n, 2004.
(8) See Feona Attwood, =93Sexed Up: Theorizing the Sexualization of Cultu=
re=94, in Sexualities, vol. 9, no. 1, February 2006, pp. 77-94.
(9) See Jean Burgess, =93Editorial: Porn and the Mediasphere=94, in M/C: =
Journal of Media and Culture, vol. 7, no. 4, October 2004, http://journal=
.media-culture.org.au/0410/00_editorial.php, 6 April 2005.
(10) Susan Driver, =93Pornographic Pedagogies? The Risk of Teaching =91Di=
rrty=92 Popular Culture=94, in M/C: Journal of Media and Culture, vol. 7,=
no. 4, October 2004, http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0410/03_teachin=
g.php, 6 April 2005.
(11) Feona Attwood, =93Reading Porn: The Paradigm Shift in Pornography Re=
search=94, in Sexualities, vol. 5, no. 1, February 2002, p. 93.
(12) See N. Katherine Hayles, How We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in =
Cybernetics, Literature, and Informatics, University of Chicago, Chicago =
1999. Roberto Marchesini, Post-human: verso nuovi modelli di esistenza, B=
ollati Borighieri, Torino 2002.
(13) See Teresa Macr=EC, Il corpo postorganico: sconfinamenti della perfo=
rmance, Costa & Nolan, Genova 1996; Mario Perniola, Il sex appeal dell=92=
inorganico, Einaudi, Torino 1994.
(14) See Emanuela Ciuffoli, XXX. Corpo, porno, Web, Costa & Nolan, Milano=
2006.
(15) See Brian McNair, Striptease Culture: Sex, Media and Democratisation=
of Desire, Routledge, London-New York 2002.
(16) Francesco Casetti, =93Theory, Post-theory, Neo-theory: Changes in Di=
scourses, Changes in Objects=94, in CiN=E9MAS, vol. 17, no. 2-3, Spring 2=
007, p. 36.
(17) See Lawerence Grossberg, =93Does Cultural Studies Have Futures? Shou=
ld It? (Or What=92s the Matter with New York). Cultural Studies, Contexts=
and Conjunctures=94, in Cultural Studies, vol. 20, no. 1, January 2006, =
pp. 1-32.
