Apart from the acquiescence to "community standards", I'll stick with Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, who wrote in his short concurrence that "hard-core pornography" was hard to define, but that "I know it when I see it." Usually dropped from the quote is the remainder of that sentence, "and the motion picture involved in this case is not that."

Since pornography--like "art", like "beauty"--is in the eye of the beholder, I am adamantly against censorship insofar as the work in question involves only the participation of adults who've given their informed consent.

Translation: children should not exploited in the production or promotion of such work.

Klimt renders such beautiful things in my opinion. This question will be answered many different ways, I am sure because this is not just about art, but includes individual morals and religious views among other things. I think it comes back down to intent and perception. If the art was intended or perceived to be art, then poof it is art. Personally, I would define pictures or sculptures involving intimate acts to be art if the pieces evoked some emotion other than arousal.

What do you think of DADAism? Mona Lisa w/ a mustache?