Art is not a label that is self-imposed. Art has standards. These standards are universal, especially as it regards the nude female form. Some here are fond of pointing out that a country or countries “allows” this or that. That’s not the issue here.
Meaning no disrespect, but knowing how the world of art and art photography works, there are clear dividing lines. And they are modeled on a religious style hierarchy.
Art critics exist to not only evaluate and criticize art but also to give it direction, no matter how subtly. An example of what I mean comes from recent announcements from a small clique of elite fashion designers and elite publications. Vogue magazine has announced ‘no more photos of skinny models.’ Period. Another reputable publication has announced: “The Return of the Woman.” In that case, a certain body type has been chosen by this priestly class as the “new” standard which all must follow. By the way, the “woman” in this case has a defined, small waist, and defined hips. As opposed to looking more like a stick or two by four.
Let’s take a modern nude photo. Just a single figure. Who decides it is art? The priests of the art community, namely art critics and gallery owners. If your work and name gets the word “important” attached to it in some prestigious art publication, then you and your work are deemed important by others and worthy of showing in a gallery, but only if the gallery owner, another part of the priestly order, agrees. You have been elevated in status, and you now have a chance to be exhibited in one of the Cathedrals of Art - the Art Museum. Your mere appearance there elevates you again. You now have the ability to earn awards, have more gallery showings and even publication in a thick coffee table book with your work printed on the highest quality paper. And interviews, since, in many eyes, knowing your work is not enough. They must know you, your vision and what drives your vision.
To answer your question, there is no reason for nude photography as art anymore. Circa 1952, there were publications designed for art students with nude models. None of the poses were sexually provocative, and the lighting was meant to highlight form - nothing experimental. The expression on the model’s face was either demure and detached or a slight smile. These publications were not meant to exist as pin-up art but as substitutes for a live model for learning the human form. By the way, pubic hair was brushed out.
My point is: at the time, no one knew what was coming. Sincerity and trust meant that some used these publications for the intended purpose, but some did not. Had it stopped at that point, one could make an argument that what was shown was art photography. But it didn’t.
Girlie magazines appeared offering photos of beautiful nude or topless models posed in pleasant surroundings. Again, no pubic hair but “pasties” were added in some magazines, either real, or added to the photo later, to cover the breast nipples. These were mostly girl next door types, but all of these magazines were considered dirty and immoral, as it was obvious that they inspired lust and masturbation.
There was a period where “glamour photography” of nudes was promoted as an art form in the 1950s, and there were name glamour photographers who built elaborate to modest settings to pose their models, sometimes with props or just a bit of strategic covering. And I mean a little bit. They published books with elaborate instructions regarding lighting, f stops, and pushing the contrast in the final print, the effects of color and using single and multiple light sources, and other somewhat scholarly information.
That ended in the 1960s. New girlie magazines featured a lot of nudes and semi-nudes and dispensed with any artistic intent. You bought those for one reason - to masturbate.
Playboy wrapped its picture section of nude and semi-nude models in a “lifestyle” publication. You got articles about the classiest cars, the best in men’s clothing and accessories, interviews with people like Fidel Castro, and art by name artists. It was considered dirty and immoral as well.
I remember how the local moms in the 1960s discovered a neighbor had thrown out a box of old playboys and they knew we boys would be tempted. So they took the box and disposed of it by means that were never revealed.
continued…
