No, I think it is much trickier than you make it out to be, @asmonet. I’ve seen many “art” photographs that elicit a prurient response, and I’ve seen art in much that people call porn.
I think the “I know it when I see it” standard has been shown to be a pretty shaky foundation on which to build legal theory. Additionally, there is the “what is art” discussion. Some, like me, would find art to be in every human endeavor. Others are more restrictive.
However, the issue I was really thinking about is that to know intent, you have to be the person. I know that in courts of law, the juries do find intent, but in art and porn, I feel certain the the boundary between the two is large.
It is quite conceivable that someone would have no intent to create porn, and yet create a work that to most people, is obviously porn. On the other hand, a person might intend to make porn, and actually create a compelling story, almost by accident. I believe there are porn directors, as well as porn actors, who later made it to the mainstream.
So maybe other people’s intent is obvious to you, @asmonet, but it’s not so much to me. I’ve made a reputation here by offering alternative explanations for behavior. So I am wont to see things in a different light. However, it’s not just because I want to be contrary; I really do see things differently—right or wrong.