Re: Schiele, let me ask you something. Is it possible for an artist to be both exceptionally gifted AND a pornographer? I.e.: does one necessarily exclude the other? Or can an artist—even an extraordinarily powerful, talented and creative artist—produce pornography?
I know so much less about art than about writing, it's not funny. Perhaps this comparison completely misses the mark. Since it's the only one I know, I'll share it and see what you think.
Namely, when it comes to writing, no amount of talent is proof against turning one’s hand to smut. A truly great, gifted writer could/probably would write brilliantly conceived and executed smut, but it would still be smut. You could read and admire it—even be staggered by the potency and creativity of the prose from a literary standpoint--but you would still know the subject matter itself was lewd and smutty.
If that makes sense?
“Re: Schiele, let me ask you something. Is it possible for an artist to be both exceptionally gifted AND a pornographer? I.e.: does one necessarily exclude the other? Or can an artist—even an extraordinarily powerful, talented and creative artist—produce pornography?”
Short answer is: yes indeed, depending on your definition of porn. I will use ‘imagery intended to arouse erotic desire and to effect seduction’ as the definition. Under that definition, in your own area of the arts, Anais Nin comes to mind. In the studio arts Klimt and Schiele come close. Schiele is actually farther away from it, even though his images are more often more graphic and more overtly sexual. What makes them less ‘pornographic’ is the immediate sense of a real person there, as opposed to meat candy. Western art does not have as much express imagery as some cultures due to Judeo-Christian influences, however there is a LOT of sublimated or allusive ‘code’ imagery or treatment, which I think is valid and acceptable.