Sex & Art (oh-- and Love)

It's so often been said, "If only the artist would put as much integrity, passion and joy into their work as they do with sex!" Well, from my experience, the passion and joy are often similar-- but not as much the integrity. And where does Love fit into the equation?

As most scientists, medical professionals and even artists themselves agree that sex begins in the imagination (whether prompted by a visual or physical stimulus or a simple thought)-- well, so does our art (or at least the conception of our art, as we experience it). Very similar passions and joys can be generated from the experience of the conception, or inspiration, of both-- whether it turns out to be a pleasurable experience within the physical act or not. And yet, what happens when we arrive at the "integrity" of sex versus art, the actual physical achievement or manifestation of either? What so often goes "hay-wire" with the integrity of our art that so often does NOT with the integrity of sex? Do we care LESS about our art? Is it less important? Does it not fulfill us as much? Or, are we simply shy about our act of creating art?

Ah-- there IS a difference within our physiological make-up. There are certainly numerous physical occurrences with even the thought of sex that give it a certain perceived advantage as to integrity: the pupils dilate, the heartbeat quickens, the blood vessels expand (rushing blood and oxygen to vital areas of the body to accomplish the act of sex)-- and all of this "steam" generated by our bodies prompt the brain to go further into a euphoric state of imagination and a "quickening" of sorts. The urge itself to complete the act becomes primal, nearly beyond the grasp of our consciousness. And when you visualize yourself accomplishing your art, do you experience the same "quickening"? Most of us would say it's similar; but not quite the same.

So, if you will, let's take this perspective as to the state-of-being of both: 'The Art of Sex" and "The Sex of Art." Something shifted a bit inside of you, I'll bet. One, sex, is considered to be "procreation", a very basic drive in mankind. Can our art possibly be perceived with the same amount of integrity as "procreation"? Do our creations not take on a certain life of their own? Does there not come a point within our act of physically manifesting our art where it begins to actually create itself to some degree-- to grow? Do we not consider our art piece as our "child" to a certain extent?

So-- should there be a difference in our integrity for EITHER?

Works of art have every bit the ability to change the world, peoples' perspectives, as do our "procreated" children-- and art pieces can be far more accessible and open to interpretation. An art piece could even "take care of us in our old age", if it sells well for long enough. An art piece can speak limitless volumes. An art piece can transcend all concerns one might have for a child; and society can be very forgiving of art's behavior. And the list goes on. However, I'll make it clear now that I am not suggesting that our art is more valuable than our children-- nothing is more valuable than true life itself.

I believe that, if we shift our perception with regards to "beauty" and "value of experience" exclusively, we will see that there is no real reason why art can't have the same effect on our integrity as does sex. Art is an expression from our Inner Self, in its purest form. And I believe we'll all agree that it is just as important to love our Inner Self as to love children that we may create from sex. And further, sex itself can also be an expression of our Inner Self-- albeit more affected possibly by libido and basic instinct. Yet again, art can speak to such basic instincts as well. From most every perspective, the integrity for art and sex are thoroughly parallel, by many intentions and processes.

Then-- there is Love. While love does not necessarily enter into our acts of sex, it MORE often enters into our acts of creating art. Love can transcend all physical conditions, a very necessary ability to the integrity of creating our ideal art. Do we need love in order to accomplish our ideal sex? There's a lot more conflicting ideas about that. Love of Self can certainly generate a sexual drive-- but, if the love of Self is egotistical, true Love cannot be expected to be present in the sexual act. So, can true Art be created with only an egotistical self Love? I believe not. I believe that egotistical love can only produce egotistical art. Although some may find a value in that, it cannot reach an ideal universal sharing of the artist's vision. Its expression will remain somewhat narrow; it may seem flat or simply uninteresting. True love of Inner Self is gracious, has no expectation and shares itself freely-- and is abundant to no end as it radiates from "the source." THEREFORE, Love cannot be exclusive to true Sex; but IS exclusive to true Art. And we all understand the dichotomy between Love and Sex.

In conclusion, I believe we need to understand more the "Why not?" than the "Why?" We have complete ability to experience abundant joy, passion and integrity in our artwork as we do with sex. Perhaps even more so. Yet THAT is one heated debate!