Exclusivists see art and pornography as an ideological polarity that can be "convincingly" distinguished in many ways. The classic exclusivist claim lies in the fundamental immorality of pornography, which, as "a tool of exploitation and imprisonment", is antithetical to the art. By depicting sexual acts in a way that is degrading to women, pornography is criticized for perpetuating the myth that rape is appropriate behavior. It is this that has prompted anti-porn feminists to warn about the causal link between pornography and violence. With depictions of women enjoying such primitive acts, the regressive influence of pornography "erodes moral character." Support for the ethical distinction between the two is provided by Gracyk who makes the defining characteristic of pornography the attitude that a representation itself expresses towards its object the pornographic attitude, an expression of contempt towards women, which is inherent in the representation and is therefore imposed on the viewer. This is in contrast to art, which, with its psychological and emotional depth, “exerts a great pull on the imagination” by inviting audiences to contemplate the underlying story. The explicit nature of the art plays a secondary role to its aesthetic beauty, as exemplified by Titano's "Venus of Urbino" in which, according to Scrutton, the main focus is not on the naked body but on the face as a "window to the soul" . .” Unlike the depravity that characterizes pornography, the two can be "convincingly" distinguished. Distinguishing between art and pornography on the basis of their ethical distinction is, I believe, futile and presumptuous. Not just...half of the paper...viewer's evaluation of the representation. “Dominant interpretive strategy,” the ability of a work to be classified as both art and pornography depending on its context, undermines the claim that the two are mutually exclusive. Combined with the numerous representations that possess both artistic and pornographic elements, the refusal to recognize the fusion of the two as a pornographic work of art, means giving up an accurate appreciation of the creation and, ultimately, frustrating the essence of art itself. Art knows no boundaries and therefore the “definition should follow the work: the work should not fit the definition”. It is time to recognize that some works of art can qualify as pornography and vice versa, rather than confine the two in incompatible terms. spheres. On this basis it is not possible to convincingly distinguish between art and pornography.’