Is Michelangelo's David not art? If you are unable to see past the nudity in art then i don't really think you are entitled to have an opinion on it, Because you obviously don't understand it, even at it's most basic level.
Well the topic says PICTURES not statues. So I understand what I am talking about. People taking pictures of themselves naked or a gathering of lots of people naked is not art.
According to webster, I don't think most art with nudity falls under that category. But there are always exceptions. Depends on the picture.
It's almost depraved that the instance nudity should become connected with something you believe it should instantly cease to be art. The people opposing the image are the ones making out to be morally superior, yet they are the only ones seeing sexual content in a photo of a child, And if you aren't seeing sexual content in an image of a child, what's the problem?.
Naked people do not frighten me, and whether they disgust or excite is totally subjective but to me, if it is designed to excite and shows sexuality I cannot say it is not art but I can say it is pornographic. It can still be art if it does more than merely excite, especially if it makes you think or feel in more than one way. Naked dead bodies can be artistic, scientific, or even pornographic depending on the intended design and more importantly the subjective nature of the observer.