I think what is at issue here is more a definition of just what pornography is. What is obscene to one is not going to be obscene to another. There is not a way to define it. So there is no answer and no way to judge beyond our own personal definition.
Sure I think the concept is possible. I am not sure I have seen any, but the possibility is out there.
my New England puritan two cents: a nude person, (male or female) standing, sitting, lying is not porn. A sexual act (no..not kissing or hugging) could be considered in some way, porn. Bondage is definately porn. I think the viewer has to either look or not look. Myself, I would feel more relaxed looking at a female than a male.....:)
...and NO, the statue of David is not porn!
That reminds me of that thread I started some time ago on the subject of erotic photography:
Sometimes an artist will be deliberately sexually provocative - which is almost cliche at this point - to deliberately tweak these folks and perhaps gain some notoriety. I am not sure if that would be art or porn, but it is definitely exploitative, though the exploited is the audience. To me this is only 1 notch above porn since challenging an audience is one thing, but to deliberately offend isn't right.
I don't know what is worse to pander (like in the British Museum who defaced ancient statuary) or to deliberately offend (knowingly put something just to tweak or offend the audience)?
Without having read thru this thread, I'm gona say that porn is penitration either by self or other.
Course it could be said that while Artistic Porn can exist, Tasteless Nudes can as well.