art or porn?

Arsewoman in Wonderland is the transcript of a porn film printed in pink ink on a huge billboard. In minute detail it describes who does what to whom and what effect it has on them, as in "he cums in her face, she moans and rolls over." As the gallery blurb explains, "Banner uses pornographic film to explore sexuality and the extreme limits of written communication." In countering the outcry, Stephen Deuchar, director of Tate Britain, said, "these are not comfortable works to view but then much art is not comfortable." Visitors to the exhibit tend not to communicate. On Sunday afternoon, the silence in the gallery is absolute - despite the high number of visitors - in keeping with the orthodoxy that art can only be appreciated in total silence and while inclining the head, folding the arms and frowning importantly.

....

For a few seconds he is silent. "I think it's clever," he says, finally. "It's very cynical. Porn attracts publicity, everybody knows that. The media furore that gathers around it, that is the work of art."

A perceptible ripple of hostility moves through the room. Dover continues. "Porn is the new rock and roll and what this piece of art is, in my opinion, is verbal justification for it. It allows all the Islingtonites ..." (at this the shiver becomes a wave) "... to get off on the sexy stuff without sanctioning porn."

I whisper to him: "do you think it's art?" and Dover replies, oblivious to the now murderous vibes arrowing our way, "Art? It's basically shite. I think the best that can be said for it is that you can probably read it and have a good wank."

"Look," he says cheerfully, "She's spelt nob wrong, it should have a 'k' at the front."

Turner Prize 2002 at the guardian