Defending Erotic Art - using Lassow's The Sin

A quick and easy argument for the legitimacy of erotic art.

Erotic art is often controversial, raising questions about morality, taste, and the boundaries of artistic expression. Take Heinrich Lossow’s The Sin (1880), for example. It’s a work that forces viewers to confront erotic desire in a way that might make them uncomfortable. But does that discomfort mean erotic art is invalid? Or could it be a valid, even vital, form of human expression? Here, I offer a really quick logical argument:

Art or Harm?

Let’s start with a simple dilemma:

Either erotic art, like The Sin, is a valid form of human expression, or it’s not. If it’s not, it must be because it’s morally harmful or degrading in some way. This is a common criticism—some people think erotic art only serves to corrupt or objectify. But if we think about art as something that expresses human experience, then erotic art must have a place in that conversation, too.

Heinrich Lassow (1880) The Sin

Connecting Human Experience to Art

To explore this, we can frame it as a hypothetical syllogism:

• If erotic art expresses something about the human condition, then it contributes to our understanding of human experience.

• If it contributes to our understanding of human experience, then it is a legitimate form of human expression.

So, the conclusion follows:

if erotic art shows us something real about being human, then it deserves to be treated as legitimate.

But let’s not just leave it there: does erotic art like The Sin express anything meaningful about humanity?

Erotic Art Does Engage the Human Condition

It's time for a little modus ponens (bear with me). I’ve already said that if erotic art expresses something about the human condition, it’s legitimate. Now, I need to show that The Sin does precisely that.

1. Erotic art, including The Sin, expresses something about the human condition—desire, guilt, power, and indulgence.

2. Therefore, erotic art contributes to our understanding of these aspects of human experience.

3. Therefore, erotic art is a legitimate form of human expression.

Lossow’s painting isn’t just about physicality; it’s about tension. It pulls the viewer into a space where desire is entwined with moral conflict. This isn’t trivial—it’s a human struggle. Erotic art doesn’t just provoke; it reflects some of the most intimate aspects of human life.

The Contraposition: What If Erotic Art Weren’t Valid?

Now, let’s flip the argument for fun, using contraposition. Recall the proposition we have arrived at earlier:

If erotic art expresses something significant about the human condition, then it is a legitimate form of human expression.

Using contraposition, Let’s restate this as:
If erotic art is not a legitimate form of human expression, then it does not express anything significant about the human condition.

This logical move lets us explore the opposite scenario. If someone were to argue that erotic art is not valid, they would also be claiming that it expresses nothing meaningful about the human experience. In other words, to deny the legitimacy of erotic art means denying that it contributes to our understanding of human emotions and struggles, like desire, guilt, and moral conflict.

But, as I’ve already demonstrated, The Sin does engage with significant aspects of human life. It explores the tension between physical desire and moral consequence, offering insight into core elements of the human condition. Since we know this to be true, the negated form of my statement (that erotic art expresses nothing significant) is false.

Thus, the original claim stands:
Erotic art does express something meaningful about the human condition, and therefore, it is a legitimate form of human expression.

Why Contraposition Strengthens the Argument:

The only way to deny the legitimacy of erotic art is to claim that it expresses nothing significant about humanity. But since erotic art—like Lossow’s The Sin—delves into real, deep aspects of human experience, we cannot dismiss it as illegitimate. Contraposition helps us see that rejecting erotic art’s legitimacy also requires rejecting its meaningfulness, which we know to be false. Therefore, erotic art must be a valid form of expression.

Conclusion: Erotic Art Is Part of the Human Story

When we put it all together, the defence of erotic art is logically valid. Erotic art like Lossow’s The Sin engages with fundamental human experiences. It doesn’t shy away from the complexity of desire, morality, and tension. Because of this, erotic art has a legitimate place in the world of artistic expression. It’s not just about shock or pleasure—it’s about exploring parts of ourselves that might otherwise remain hidden. That’s what good art does, right?

So, rather than dismissing erotic art as harmful or irrelevant, we should recognise it as part of the broader human story—sometimes uncomfortable but always insightful.