The freedom of expression has always reached the boundaries of morality. In visual arts it is categorized as pornography by the moralist and subversive by the authoritarian. But how can we distinguish a real art from a crap. Is there such thing as a masterpiece or it just happened that a group of individuals has the same taste. A masterpiece to few and ridicule to some.
Since the beginning, man expresses and recorded his ideas in the form of visual. In a later era we could see in Rome the grandeur of the masters. It is breathtaking. In Vatican we could marvel at the painting of Michael Angelo's Creation. It is nude, but is there someone who would say that it must be removed because it is pornography. Then what is the basis for a nude art to be a masterpiece or pornography. Is it the medium. If there was a camera in the time of Boticelli then he might used photography in his masterpiece The Birth of Venus. Most censorship uses the genitals of the human body as the limitation for art and a basis for pornography. Should this be the real filter for pornography. We must also remember that custom, tradition and morality change in time. It is unpleasant in history that we banned a particular nude art that in the future it will be hailed.
Art is the freedom of expression. It is every human's right. To judge the art of others is as vital as judging his race, origin and religion.
So what it is that makes a nude art a masterpiece or pornography, frankly, I am not sure but I have a few basis of my own. I ask myself how honest is the artist. What is his real motive in creating the art. Is it Humanities or just money. How much effort he put unto it. Does it require extensive studies or planning to create such an art. Can you still consider a man who pissed on the wall and says it's art.
Pornography and morality is pushing its boundaries for centuries. As artists we are responsible for our creations. Let's make masterpieces for the glory of mankind and not to his downfall.