dannyz - i have heard over and over that when Tsiachovsky (and yes, i am sure i misspelled his name) wrote the 1812 overture that he didn't want to, resented doing it, only did it for the money, and hated it when it was done. yet people have been applauding it for over 100 years and some of the finest musicians and conductors of each generation have hailed it as a work of art - some even feel it is one of the finest works of art.
Basschick - Yeah I realize my post was pretty black and white and there was quite a bit of generalization there. I do agree with you and the definition that by creating, we are essentially artists. Let's look at the definition of 'art' from Dictionary.com:

Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.
From this definition, porn can certainly be considered as art. Does porn not imitate life and the work of nature? Do we not edit videos or take photos that counteract or alter the work of nature? Isn't sex the most basic function of human nature? Doesn't sex on video or in photos appeal to the senses, and can't it often be beautiful?

Going back to the original point of the thread, comparing porn to heroin, I there is just no comparison in my opinion. Heroin is a drug, porn is a work of art, or if you don't agree with that definition then at least porn is a human creation. It seems like comparing apples and televisions.

So, if porn is in fact art by this definition, then I guess I would have to reconsider my orignal post. There are of course those who create art only for profit, those who create for profit and creativity, and those who only create only for creativity (but don't care about the profit).

I think most of us here our motivated by a combination of our creative will and our drive for profit.