Can pornography be considered art?

This is a more difficult question than it seems on its surface.

First, we'd have to agree on what defines pornography. Is it simply the visual representation of the human body? Does it have to include genitalia, or is bared breasts or butts sufficient? Does the answer change if viewed in profile? Does it have to include a graphic sexual act? How much of that act has to be visible?

Because I vividly remember laughing hard at my state's ban on magazine displays showing buttocks, demanding that such porn be kept behind the counter, available only to customers who asked for it and could prove they were legal adults, and the very next issue of Time magazine cover showed a soldier in Vietnam carrying a naked child whose butt showed fully. Places that sold magazines ignored the law.

Most porn, however we might agree to define it, is not art, but there are graphic depictions of bodies and sexual acts that are clearly art, in museums all over the world.

YES....i am an artful sucka

Of course it can be if it's done with some poise. 

True -art is the is pollock -art. throw paint from home-depot. you can be an artist in 10 minutes.

I'm sure quite a few pretentious idiots who would potentially consider a pile of horse excrement 'art' might do but porn 'per se' is not art, it's porn, people having sex. Made primarily for the purpose of enabling people to get off on it.

The contemporary academic definition of "what is art" varies a bit depending on who you ask. By and large it is "anything and everything".

So by that definition the answer to your question is, of course it is.

As in all of life, don't confuse, "I don't like it" with some rule of law. No, you are not "right".

No.  Absolutely not.  Or it would be on museum walls & it would not be called pornography.

It's entertainment, sort of. Not my kind of thing, but some of it is art. (but most of it is crap).