Have you ever wondered what the difference is between a piece of art featuring nude figures, and pornography? Is there a difference?
In A Pilgrim’s Regress, C.S. Lewis wrote about a man who ordered milk and eggs from a waiter in a restaurant. After tasting the milk he commented to the waiter that it was delicious. The waiter replied, “Milk is only the secretion of a cow, just like urine and feces.” After eating the eggs he commented on the tastiness of the eggs. Again the waiter responded that eggs are only a by-product of a chicken. After thinking about the waiter’s comment for a moment the man responded, “You lie. You don’t know the difference between what nature has meant for nourishment, and what it meant for garbage.”
Ravi Zacharias notes that while both art and pornography utilize nude figures, the purpose/motives for portraying the naked body are definitively distinct. Pornography utilizes nude figures for the pure purpose of stimulating the baser instincts of individuals; instincts that will not be satisfied by that alone. Art, on the other hand, utilizes nude figures for the purpose of highlighting the beauty of man. While pornography engenders lust, art engenders admiration for the glory and beauty of the human body, and thus the glory of its Maker.
The school was affiliated with a larger denomination and there was a religion requirement. Although it was a "check the block" course to graduate, I took, "The Bible and Modern Moral Issues," which was a terrific course. One of the course requirements was a panel presentation of a contemporary moral issue, in which we were divided up into groups of three. The group I ended up consisted of myself, an ROTC, army bound, male history/art history major, a female pre-law poli-sci major (who was fairly middle of the road), and a Women's studies major. We took on the issue of pornography.
I approached it from the angle of art history and aesthetics, the pre-law student looked at the legal/constitutional aspect, and the women's studies took the feminist, damage to women angle. I have to say we gave, by far, the best presentation of any (and the prof agreed). Part of our presentation that I compiled was a multi-paged questionnaire for the whole class which presented an image and simply asked for a block to be checked: "Art" or "Porn".
One thing that became very obvious was that it had to do with context. One image I presented was an elegantly figured female photographed through a slightly misty lens. She was clearly nude, but all the conventional "naught bits" were obscured by a large victorian hat. The photo was very well composed, aesthetically pleasing and not particularly erotic. Every person in the class placed this image in the "art" category, and were shocked when it was revealed it was taken from a larger photo spread in Hustler.
Similarly, there are a number of classical paintings depicting images from Greco-Roman mythology that are sexually charged, and viewed in a vacuum, outside a museum and without a knowledge of the underlying mythology, could easily be considered pornographic.
I do agree with your (and many other's) conclusion that broadly speaking, art will elevate and celebrate the human form, while porn objectifies and demeans. Unfortunately, this still makes the matter pretty subjective, and makes legislation very problematic in a society with guarantees on the freedom of expression.