>>3354369>But that doesn't make it art. Art can make the viewer experience a wide spectrum of emotions. What nude photography makes you feel is limited to different levels of turned on.That's a very narrow view of things. Yes, arousal is definitely one of the feelings that a nude photo can give people, but that's not the *only* feeling.
First off, nude photography is *photography*, so all of the feelings that can be conveyed through photography are there. You can appreciate a nude photo for its composition, its lighting, its color, how the elements in the frame balance with each other, etc.
Second, nude photography is generally a subset of portraiture, so it inherits everything from that. You can appreciate a nude photo through empathy with the model's emotion as displayed on their face or through their body language. I've seen amazing nudes where the model's eyes pull you in even more than her tits. I've seen nudes where the shot makes me feel happy in a non-penis way just because the model seems to be having so much fun in the shot.
Third, nudes don't have to be all about "Y'ALL CHECK OUT DEM TITTTAAAAYS". Look at this Edward Weston shot, for example. No tits. No ass. No pussy. Still definitely nude. Not particularly arousing unless you're *really* hard up. Beautifully composed. Definitely art.
You can make the argument that the nudity aspect adds a little extra on its own because it generally adds a certain level of sexual arousal along with everything else--and I would agree with that--but that doesn't invalidate it as an artform. That's like saying that color photography isn't art because all it does is stimulate your eyes color photoreceptors. Or like saying that a dish is only good because of the spices that are in it. Even if true, it's reductive to the point of absurdity. And if the ONLY feelings you ever get from nudes are pants-feelings, that's more on you.
