Porn is as literalist as it gets. So I would argue that a fully clothed, zero-penetration, zero physical contact depiction of an affair layered with allegory for romance and disregard for societal norms is anything but pornographic.

In rereading about this painting yesterday I came across this great article: http://listverse.com/2018/07/01/10-widely-misinterpreted-artworks/.

I first saw this painting as a kid in art class. Many years later I went looking for it and was shocked to see the man pulling the swing. I had somehow not even seen him when I was little. And now I read that he’s the cuckolded husband who doesn’t see his wife’s lover. And that hats were Rococo metaphors for erections. And that rose bushes were symbols for femininity.

There are also expert critiques on the roles the angel statues play in this painting.

Porn is devoid of symbolism.

twitter @h_m_edwards unsplash @heathermedwards

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store