funny, but wonder what the camera specs are, im always amazed these days by what they call art, it get stranger every day
Don't know what the camera specs have to do with this discussion. As for "art", it's the nature of it that artists are encouraged and expected to produce something "new" and "original" and "fresh" so all kinds of stuff gets tried. Much of that experimentation doesn't catch on with either the arts crowd or the general public. Some does, and becomes the new wave. Those who work and produce art in the same manner as what has been done before will be called "imitative", "uninspired", "tired", "cliché", etc.
Even on this forum, we get a fair amount of discussion about stuff that either is similar to existing forms and expressions, and stuff that veers into unfamiliar territory. How many times have we seen someone's beautiful sunset landscape be labelled "just another sunset". And then, we have people like Cris Crossley (
@binga63 ) who produces amazing work by combining photography with digital manipulation.
Returning to the OP, the presentation of nudity in unexpected settings CAN be considered "art" in that it challenges our ideas of what is acceptable, but because the subject is an attractive woman, it's hard not to get the other bunch of buttons pressed, which have less to do with art and more with voyeurism. If the subject was a person (either sex) of average build, the question of nudity in public places would still be there, but with less of the leering aspect. And because of that, it would have been less interesting to the general public.
