Quote Originally Posted by Jim Jones View Post
I wonder if their business here in Missouri is as hot (pun intended) as in more sophisticated markets. I suspect it thrives, although local customers might not want to admit it.

Pornography certainly can be art. Mapplethorpe comes to mind. Although he sometimes used photography to promote himself and his fetishes, it was fine photography. Ansel Adams sometimes used photography to promote conservation, and it was fine photography. It's not the subject matter, but how it is done, that makes the difference.
I agree completely. I do think, though, that a lot of folks due to Puritanical Prudishness will view anything naked or sexual to be pornographic. Hence that is why Mapplethorpe was so controversial in Cincinatti. (BTW, I never understood why all the fuss, I find his photos to be rather boring and mechanical. At least the ones I have seen)

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.