Pornography in art is in the news. Again. The setting is of interest, though. The Society of Women Artists is having its One-Hundred and Fifty-Third Annual Exhibition at the Mall Galleries in London. Leona McCall’s “Portrait of Ms. Ruby May, Standing” was among the exhibits, but it was removed because it was deemed pornographic. The painting shows a woman in her late thirties smoking a pipe and wearing an unbuttoned outfit that exposes much of her breasts and her crotch. As a portrait of a woman, it is neither here nor there. Raunchy as she is portrayed, Ms. Ruby May entices nothing but a smirk. Understandably, McCall is incensed. Her intention was to explore “how women choose to express their sexual identity beyond the male gaze,” she says. According to her, the woman she painted leads erotic workshops, and she wanted to show her pubic hair that is often airbrushed in contemporary depictions of the female body. But the Society of Women Artists was allowed to replace McCall’s work with another, less provocative, nude. The hoopla has enticed many a nasty comment, it goes without saying. At this day and age, pornography in art is supposed to be history. Surprisingly, the comments I have come against do not suggest any remedy for the Society of Women Artists. How about organizing their next annual exhibition in a less posh gallery? An empty warehouse, for example, would be a real winner.