Pornographic photography is an exception, the only photography that makes the mythic "it has been". There was an erected sex, there was a penetrated sex, it was not fake, it was not played. There is no distance between a pornographic photography and its referent.
In this meaning, pornography is more a question of technic than of its subject. Pornography is the raw and brute exhibition with the illusion that this exhibition would tell us something, but the rawness itself prevent any other reaction than animal.
One of the aims that I had before begining this series was to achieve artistic and pornographic photos. It is a failure. If it's possible to take really crude art photographies it is not possible to make them pornographic, because art cannot exist without a distance, without a metaphoric space. You can even take some pornographic picture, exhibit them as work of art, only their origin will be pornographic but they will be designated as something else.
Between art and pornography there is another gap, the provocation. Pornography does not provocate anything else than erections. Pornography is build on standard fantasmes, no originiality there. And as it stick as much as possible to the reality it does not take off. Here we must not confuse pornography and sexuality. If sexuality can be subversive, pornography only offers a standard vistion of it.