I tend to see both art and pornography as being subjective to the different classifications of intent and use. The art critic Robert Hughes has said that art is "anything created with aesthetic intent." I stand squarely behind this definition and I think that such a distinction is important for one major reason: it allows for bad art. There is too much pontificating when it comes to art, and everyone has opinions based upon their own personal tastes. These tastes are too frequently framed in the judgment of whether an individual piece is "art" or is "not art". On the other hand, big tent of art has been drastically re-staked by twentieth century artists such as Warhol, Koons, Mapplethorpe, and Hirst. With the potential for literally anything to be classified as art, it is crucially important to accept that an object may be classified as art, it just may not be "good" art by your standards.

On the other hand, the historic benchmarks of obscene materials such as "community standards", "prurient interests", "educational value", or "intention to titillate" are all painfully subjective. I prefer a much simpler standard. To me, pornography (from the Greek "whore-pictures") is defined by its use. I have known individuals to be sexually gratified by lingerie advertisements, swimsuit magazines, and even children's cartoons. Some of these are designed to be titillating, some are not but if you ask the creators and editors of each, all will flatly deny creating pornography. The viewer or reader however christens any individual media artifact as pornographic by using it as such.

I make art. If a viewer uses it as pornography, that is the viewers choice. Does it cease to be art when that occurs? I can't see how it would. Intent and use are two very different things. Is it good art? I am told that it is by critics that I respect that much of it is. There are many pieces that will be seen on www.entrenousnudes.com that I would not choose to hang in an exhibit, but this is an archive, not a gallery.