I think he's just calling it art as a legal defense to try and somehow lighten the act, sort of the way people can claim insanity as a way of explaining heinous actions for a lighter sentence (ie if the accused did what he did in the belief that it was acceptable " as art" then his actions are somewhat less responsible). The flaw in that logic that its not art OR abuse, because one is not exclusive of the other, especially since the whole artistic merit defense is entirely subjective, at the very best one could say its both artistic and abusive--murderous, actually--and hence the existance of the former is not explainable of the latter. I mean the family in Texas Chainsaw Massacre could use that excuse--their human skin lampshades and bone chairs are obviously signs of a high degree of craftsmanship...