126 0004 der stricher, Filius de Lacroix, 2013 V: In your opinion, what determines whether or not a piece of art is perceived as pornographic? F: I think what’s essential to understanding this is that this perception happens inside the viewer’s head. If what I see corresponds to some erotic desire of mine, it becomes pornographic; or also, if I see something that I can’t reconcile with my own ethical values. V: With the way you reprocess porn films, you confront social phenomena everyone thought had been long overcome, yet even half a century after the hippie generation an open approach to sexuality remains an illusion. Do you see it as the artist’s job to stimulate open public discourse by provocation and exposure of our vulnerabilities? F: The way I see it, that’s the main purpose of art! Too often, art’s only role is to fit into your beautiful designer apartment, even if it’s cheap and made by IKEA. Art has been reduced to fulfilling a decorative role for ordinary middle-class consumers or serving as an object of capitalist speculation for collectors who only buy what’s expensive and is likely to become even more expensive. And if you make art that, at first glance, doesn’t look like it might fit into a designer apartment, you hardly stand a chance of getting a good gallery interested in you. But that’s a disaster, because art’s purpose shouldn’t be that it’s beautiful, but that it addresses problems! V: When confronting people with <strong>HIV</strong>, no matter what their social background, many unfortunately still associate it with things like promiscuity, homosexuality and guilt due to a lack of responsibility. Why do you think these prejudices are so deeply rooted?