Nudity vs. Pornography

In class one of these past days, we somehow got onto the topic of the offensiveness of nude art and/or pornography. Personally, I think there is a huge difference between nudity and pornography, and that nudity in itself should not be seen as offensive. In many classic traditional artworks, the human form is depicted partially if not completely nude. The human body for centuries has been viewed as a sacred form of beauty, the reason for its ubiquitous presence throughout art history. The only reason the naked body is seen as offensive or lewd is because its been hypersexualized and exploited.
As for the artistic value of nudity and pornography, I do think there is some grey area. Though an image or a photograph of the naked body may hold sexual conotation, I dont think that it should necessarily be considered pornographic. Similarly, I dont think that just because a graphic, nude image might be beautiful it shouldnt be considered pornographic. Nude art aims to celebrate the beauty of the human form; pornography is just sexually stimulating. By deffinition, pornography is "obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, especially those having little or no artistic merit" (dictionary.com).

Q: Why would an artist choose to create something offensive? Oppositely, why would he attempt to recreate something beautiful?