Sexual themes run throughout Dali's works. That was just one of the more obvious ones, and since you were trying to debate the sexual themes in what I considered a plainly sexual piece of work, I wanted to make sure there was no debate--and clearly, there is no debate with the work I chose.
But you still didn't say whether or not it was art. You hemmed and hawed, and said if it wasn't "Daliesque," it would be pornography, but what makes it that way?
What it comes down to is the Supreme Court's say on the matter, which isn't particularly satisfactory: you know pornography when you see it. A couple problems with that: (1) it's totally subjective (again, see my comments on Helmut Newton. I think he's great, but I could certainly see how some people, since his works often feature naked women, would call it pornography); and (2) it's totally pompous and self-centered: you think it's pornography and should be banned, and thus everyone else who thinks differently is wrong.
I rather think that the point of the First Amendment is to allow such differences to be injected into public debate. So if anyone can come up with an intermediate and yet tenable position that would adequately define art while excluding pornography, I might be inclined to adopt it, but the difficulty is finding that position.
The First Amendment was written to specifically deal with the press. In reality, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the "right" to publish or read porn, nor private citizens speech; no matter how Larry Flynt and his lawyers twisted it, for their court cases.
Trying to smear me with that awfully large brush full of tar, re I can't tell what porn ( or obscenity or even art ) is, but I know it when I see it, line, is preposterous. You asked me, twice, to define porn, but I declined to do so; twice.I did this, because no matter what I would have written, it wouldn't have satisfied you. You were/are only looking for an argument and nothing I would or could have said would have ended that discussion. No, it would have only given you more fodder, with which to argue.
Some people see pornography in everything and anything; others see it nowhere, even when it is staring them in the face. From your posts, you appear to fall into the first category.
Ooooooooooo...so you wanna play games, do you? Okay, take Titian's THE RAPE OF LUCRECE BY TARQUIN. Oh dear, oh dear, there's *gasp* "rape" in the title and Lucrece's sort of naked, but you really cant see any of the "dirty bits", now can you? But Tarquin, who is not only fully clothed, but wearing armor, is threatening her with a knife/dagger. That's just got to be a "dirty" painting, doesn't it? Just look at the fright masking Lucrece's face!
But, if you didn't know what the title was, you might also suppose that the man was going to kill her, or was threatening her for any number of reasons.
How about a lot of Bosch's paintings? Pick one, any one of the most famous will do. Aren't they prime examples of Sadomasochistic "erotic" art? Noooooooooooo? But look at all of those naked, writhing bodies being tortured! Oh, they're representations of what will befall sinners and not meant to be pornographic, salaciously detailed erotica for the S&M crowd? Says you! No.......says me. No......and on and on. LOL
But surely Girodet's MADEMOISELLE LANGE AS DANAE is filthy porn. Maybe even child porn? Only if you have a filthy mind and see salacious pornography at every turn! Even knowing the myth this painting is based on, doesn't turn it into anything remotely akin to porn, erotica, or even highly sexual.
So then, what's left but flowers and landscapes, to be seen as "pure", unsullied by any sexual overtones at all? Oh drat! There's Georgia O'Keefe and all of that chatter about how those flowers are just gynecological studies of vulvas.
Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh!
What it comes down to, is the fact that YOU have put words into my mouth, which were never uttered nor typed, you think that filth is just fine, and that you find sexuality and slaciousness, and pornography in everything.
Loser.......errrrrrrrrr Libertarian are you ? We had a Libertarian on FR, a while ago, who thought that explicit child pornography was "ART" and neither harmful to those exploited, nor those who enjoyed viewing it. He was banned. Most of us DO know the difference between art and pornography and aren't the blue noses you claim we are.