I have a giant pet peeve as to what “thinking” Americans, is the artistic photography of female form. Most people think of the photos in Playboy as art photography. I’m not. The fundamentalists are classified in artistic photography of the female form (especially the nude) as pornography. This is not the case. So what? Especially when you consider people to photograph the female form, especially in the female nude, there is a hierarchy of classification. I put the boy down and I will certainly not be defined somehow as art, but degrading. On top of this hierarchy, the arts, photography of the female nude is to be formed.

If you see an artistic picture of the female form, we can now say that the model is made, and highlights the greatest respect. Always try given the intention of the photographer. Is he / she is free somehow, or is the photographer trying to make a statement about the beauty of the human body. Look again, it feels that the photographer pays homage to the objects by an image that speaks mainly in the most demanding sensitivity. Do you think that the act is photographed like a beautiful landscape?

A good example of art photography of the female form, images of Alfred Cheney Johnston, Ziegfeld Follies photographer of the Prime Minister of the Jazz Age. Most of his photos was the star of the Folies. But he discovered after his death, had made a series of photographs of nude models. If you look at the pictures of the models used in conjunction with these photos of nude models see no difference in intent of beautiful images, artistic. In all his paintings, which shows nothing but the artistic approach of a painter of pictures shot of the female form. One can see that his intention is always to honor women and their place in the world.