I think it's mostly a matter of context. Porn is something you watch while you jerk off, and afterwards you throw it away. That's what it's designed for, and there's not much more to be seen if you watch it in any other context.
In fact, the OP is slightly off about the question of actual porn--porn is more or less the distilled version of erotica, not film, that takes away the art.
Now if you try to make porn, or make something that has the superficial appearance of porn, and then by accident or design end up creating something that's capable of greater intellectual or emotional depth, maybe that could be art. For instance, if the girl was holding the camera, it would be a subversive commentary on the male gaze. Creating art like that in the nominal form of pornography would in fact be deeply ironic simply because porn isn't art. (It wouldn't necessarily be erotica, because you've distilled the art away from the erotica to make the porn, and then added a different, ironic aspect of art on top of it.)
In fact, the OP is slightly off about the question of actual porn--porn is more or less the distilled version of erotica, not film, that takes away the art.
Now if you try to make porn, or make something that has the superficial appearance of porn, and then by accident or design end up creating something that's capable of greater intellectual or emotional depth, maybe that could be art. For instance, if the girl was holding the camera, it would be a subversive commentary on the male gaze. Creating art like that in the nominal form of pornography would in fact be deeply ironic simply because porn isn't art. (It wouldn't necessarily be erotica, because you've distilled the art away from the erotica to make the porn, and then added a different, ironic aspect of art on top of it.)