i had a freind who did an enitre series of full frontals. she used flora and fauna to wrap around then body or allowed the modle to wear a sheer ffabric, the series was beautiful... theses were choices she made because it was what she felt. and that is how i think one makes choices on this topic. it must feel right. maplethorpe was more about being open and hoest and there is not apology needed for that. he was strong and bold, not afraid of what was not acceptable. maplethorps images are beautiful on every technical level, and beyond.

i have not shot a full frontal but there is no real reason for it. it is just not part of my visual voice... yet

The resolution lies in the intersection of the holy aesthetic triangle: model, artist, and audience. If the intersection is at Burning Man, then full frontal that also shows a context, like the shower picture, is pleasing and worthy of being called art. Oh, one might quibble about the cropping, the background clutter or not, but there is a good photograph here, one that needs no words to explain, one that would not be helped by covering the genitals.

Probably just about impossible to determine beforehand, though. I'd resolve it mostly by taking several shots at several angles and distances and seeing which one best captures the vision that prompted trying to make the photograph.

i want to see a full frontal of a man on his knees, sitting up, his lover with her back to him, head at his stomach, his hand gently under her breast, resting not holding... shot from the view of the man... full frontal??????

Abject,

Maplethorpe is eloquence of the idea of nudity, race, and homosexuality. I am not sure your latest: "Jock Sturges at Camp Rhinoceros," could be compared with Maplethorpe's work. His work is sublime. This piece is a snap shot of a boy with a Gnombe in a pose. It is a posed composition; Maplethorpe's people are statuesque, important as figures playing against the morays of society, perhaps even now and he drew the line that those Jesse Helm types couldn't stand behind because they were reflections of their fears.

Maplethorpe manifested Heidegger's advice: "The about which fear is afraid is the fearful being itself... Fear is a mode of attunement."

You've got to go much further, but I can't advise you. The issue is not one that seems to be aesthetically important at this juncture. Something that illustrates the apathy of our country might belly up to the bar and order the right cocktail. "Don't ask, Don't Tell," is not on everyone's minds these days. It's just the opposite in a political sense. We need real nudity, stuff that gets to the heart of the matter of our hiddenness of being. Why are you so focused on sexuality? People are dying.

I support gays, but the picture of the boy is explicit without apology and the point is cliche. And perhaps what arises in my complaint is the fact that my monologue reveals the art of your image. Art becomes the provocation, the discussion, my fatigue. The argument for gay rights was made, accepted, and moved beyond.

And so in that regard I appreciate you.

From an art stand point I have no problem with full frontal nudity in any context.

Even though it was not full frontal nudity, the recent uproar over the "Thanksgiving," installation by American photographer Nan Goldin that Elton John was showing at a British gallery really made me wonder why people are so afraid of nudity in photography. Many of us looking at pictures of nudes see the art and place in context with the story the image is telling. But, I think it is through the conditioning of religious societies that the general population consider nudity as "sinful" or taboo, thus regarding any nude photos as lewd and ones containing nude images of any person underage as child pornography. I disagree, and feel that position is very close minded.

I, in no way condone sexually explicit pictures or gratuitous nudity in the photography of minors, but I do believe that art photos like Goldin's have a place in the gallery/art world, especially when they are telling a story. For example, a pic of a toddler, nude, playing at the beach is a wonderful shot showing emotion and innocence, but how would the be considered to a population conditioned to see it as pornography. I would look at it and smile, remembering the photos that my Mom took of myself as a tiny diaperless child running around the yard . I guess it just portrays innocence and being carefree to me. I know that there are individuals out there that would see an image like that and become sexual aroused, but they are the exception to the rule and a very, very small section of society. I think a more open society unafraid and accepting of nudity and sex would make a lot of difference in the way this type of photography is perceived. Hiding it away and making nudity taboo only creates problems. The real problem is I don't see society changing it's views much these days in the world we are living. It seems we are getting more prudish with each generation.

I think photographers using nudity tastefully is doing a repressed world a favor in showing the beauty of our human bodies.

I really enjoy seeing someone like Mapplethorpe or Goldin tell a story with their images. I think the nudity is only a part of the narrative making up the story, but it seems to be the part everyone gets hung up on.

I may have got a bit off topic, but I think the use is all in the context of the story the photographer is trying to tell.