I do think Cliff Hanley is wrong (ArtsProfessional issue 17, January 14, p2) about what constitutes pornography.
The intention of the writer/artist, and the use to which the art is intended to be put, are very important here. The word itself actually means ?writing about prostitutes?, which implies a clear intention to arouse and/or titillate. Plenty of art elicits sensual and indeed sexual responses without specifically intending to (though it can have a lot to do with one's mood at the time of course). Plenty does the same quite intentionally (Skryabin, anyone?). Plenty fails to do so. I had a conversation with a composer once who told me that it was his ambition to bring a whole concert hall full of people to orgasm by the sheer beauty of his music. Was he a pornographer? Or would he only have become one if he had achieved this ambition?
On the other side of the coin is the example of the foot-fetishist films which were classified 18 by the BBFC because of their intent, not because of their content (lots of shots of women putting on and taking off their shoes - rather dull, I'd have thought). Surely it boils down to the artist having responsibility for intent and content, but not for the audience's response.