No, porn is about sex, not nudity.
This claim sucks, and with it the consequence would be to say that something like Playboy is art, should be evaluated on artistic merits, and not by nature pornographic, which is also a claim that sucks.
You've over-corrected the wrong direction, throwing out the baby with the bath water, and wound up ignoring the most important part festerloves post which was to really emphasize the
usually aspect. Obviously nudity is used as a usually correct heuristic to determine if something is pornographic. If you go on pornhub and look at the thumbnails, I wonder if you're going to see a common theme maybe? The venn diagram of Is-Nude and Is-Pornographic
in digital media are going to be hand-in-hand a whole hell of a lot. Really pornography is media produced
with an intent to cause sexual gratification usually containing nudity. So if you want to be deconstructing this to art, you would have to be proving that the intent is not to be sexually appealing, and good luck with that.
It's a bad faith argument to try to split this hair and afterward define the two halves to be different.