We're both missing the point.

But I'm doing it intentionally.

My point was only tangential to the point you were trying to make, which is perhaps why you're missing it.

"No one but a handful of MAPs, I mean."

That's the part that makes my point relevant. It harkens back to your accusation, months and months ago, that some MAPs are capable of justifying the abuse of children, or some such.

The point that I was making is that whether or not it could be considered art is irrelevant to whether or not the act is justified. Which is to say that whether or not it could be considered art is irrelevant to whether or not this guy, and the acts he committed, deserve condemnation.

Yet, you brought the point up, apparently because you thought it was relevant. My point is that it's not. Unless you're mistaking "it was art!" for a justification, which you seem to be doing. And maybe there are MAPs who do it - there probably are. But they're making the same mistake you're making, by assuming that whether or not it's art is relevant. It's not. That is the proper counter to their defense, not stating that "this could never be art!" - which is factually untrue.