Quote - I noted nobody responded with thier definition of porn.

Now you guys want to talk about evil, and how nudity is evil.  Nobody said that.  However I do think the objectification of females is - and porn does that, not appreciation of females   (which I see often in nude art).  

For the record:
por·nog·ra·phy     /pɔrˈnɒgrəfi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pawr-nog-ruh-fee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation–noun obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, esp. those having little or no artistic merit. 

Gee, I wonder why an ART site doesn't want to be represented by that.  Go figure.

Like you, I consider porn "evil," and I have been on the other side of this argument (black and white is so much simpler than color...) many times, even here, and sneered at for "Puritanism." The reason "we" insist that the PTB are saying "nudity = porn" is that it is implicit in their move to control porn by restricting nudity. In my skewed world-view, a picture that shows one person grovelling and licking the shiny boot of another is porn, and so is a picture of a dead child with her entrails strewed about like rose petals. Their clothes don't matter. Go figure.

Defining pornography is hopeless, and what troubles me is not the unwillingness to view body parts or acts -- one loose definition of Puritanism -- but the intellectual hypocrisy of promoting something while denouncing it or denouncing something publicly that you revel in privately. That is my definition of Puritanism, and it applies to this site as much as it does to Ted Haggard, Jim Bakker, Joseph Smith, Pope Pius XII and any rich Buddhist.

You can't even use the handy notion of whether the work was "porn to the artist." I promise you that Courbet's lovely pornography was, in his mind, just that. And I'm confident that the Naked Maja was conceived as porn. And if you want quibble about Caravaggio's Amor Victorious, then take a look at the leer on the face of his adolescent John the Baptist as he fondles a pushy ram.

The "porn to the viewer" definition is hopeless because it has the lifespan of a mayfly. I'm 63, and I find bare expanses between female bellybutton and belt unnerving because for my generation, they would be considered provocative. It's a case study in subjective judgment; I have to remind myself that most of these "slutty" girls are no more thinking "provoke" than my generation's teeny boppers were when they bared their calves. I find myself understanding (which is not the same thing as approving) Arab squeamishness.

How subtle are the distinctions? I've been labeled "Puritan" in other threads after repeating my still unanswered question: If the leering adolescent split beaver in Amor Victorious were a girl, would the picture be considered a masterpiece of Renaissance art? Consider the fate of Courbet's beautiful 'Origine du Monde before answering.

How subtle? I love that Courbet, with no illusions that it has the artistic merit of Caravaggio, whose work I also love. But six years ago I was checking my company's servers for stuff that shouldn't be there (personal files that clog the server, like MPEGs) and I stumbled across a 40Meg photo. It was one of my employees, posing to recreate Courbet's picture. An added complication was that it was in one male employee's folder and she was living with another male employee. Oh, the stories I missed hearing. I went quietly to the owner's  supervisor and asked her to tell him to remove it and not store large personal files here. That picture was pornographic, by my definition, though not especially offensive. Why pornographic? Because the reason I recognized her (weren't you wondering?) was that unlike the somnolent, relaxed figure in the Courbet, she was propped up on her elbows and grinning impishly at the camera. And I was more bothered by the fidelity question than by the nastiness question. She and her erstwhile boyfriend broke up a few weeks later.

The point of my story is not, "And THAT'S pornography!" You say you "know it when you see it," but you should remember that this is because you are applying your own personal definition to what you see. For me, as for you, the word "pornography" is reserved for those things you feel are meant to titillate but instead repulse you. "Erotica" generally means "successfully titillate." Nobody can predict your reaction. If you get wet pants watching spike heels crush baby mice (a notorious porn genre), it's erotica, and those of us regarding pictures than simulate this as porn are "Puritans." Conversely, if I feel a terrible stirring every time I see beautiful wrist, that is erotica, even if in your more modern mind it's "just weird."

I too am curious about "davinci."
M