Having seen gandolfi's image in the gallery, I really don't think it merits the descriptor of porn.

The art world has long since moved on from defining such photographs as pornography, hell, go look at Ed Templeton's photographs...you won't find that in a porn shop, but you will find him exhibited in galleries and I make a point to check out his new zines at Dashwood Books in NYC everytime I stop in.

Pornography is material that is made with intent of arousal and...shall we say "consumption". I've seen more tawdry imagery in middle-school art classrooms, much less the greater world of art in general. I myself have made photographs that are blatantly sexual in nature, with absolutely no apologetic or veiling characteristics. Do I see those photographs as porn? Absolutely not, they are records of experiences and events that I have either witnessed or been involved in myself.

If Charles Bukowski can be found in nearly any library, or book store, it's very difficult for me to accept the censorship of what is, in reality, a fairly tame erotic photograph on a website devoted to photography.

Additionally, I don't see the point in taking issue with the content in the gallery. As far as I'm aware, the vast majority of members here are 18 or (much) older, and to see the gallery you have to be a subscriber, and I'm not aware of any sub-18 subscribers. Regardless, I was poring over HR Giger's work when I was 13 years old, which hits far heavier than basically any other "erotica" I've ever seen.