Heh, this discussion has moved so rapidly it's hard to catch up! So a few summary points -

Bobasaur - I didn't take your comments as a personal attack, but I think you misread my last post. I was taking it that the pictures of A, B and C were all sexual in subject and so could be considered pornography if they weren't art.

Blackhearted - I think we agree pretty much. If the primary purpose of a work is to cause sexual arousal then it's pornography. But the emphasis has to be on primary. I would say that a work of art could cause arousal but still be primarily art - in which case it isn't pornography. Back to intent.

And as to whether this is a useless distinction because one can't ask dead artists about their intent - well, I was giving the easy example where A, B and C can be cross-examined. In the case where you can't ask the artist, you have to form your own judgement as to what the intention was. The work itself should provide an abundance of clues for those who can read them.

Keith - sorry, but xoconostle is right, and it isn't a fallacy. It's a matter of understanding.

Ernyoka1 - you are being hard on Rotica; there is some excellent stuff posted there, of very high quality. There is also some chaff, but you get that at any community site. Equally, I can't speak about RM, which I know I should visit more, but I find the layout of the site off-putting.