The question looks odd but since I know what you're talking about, I understand it.
Perspective means everything and an object viewed in part, or from an unfavourable distance, can look like something else. We've all seen images on the web that might appear to be part of a woman's body but which, when viewed from further away, might be something else altogether.
Art becomes nudity when the perspective prompts our subconscious to view it as such.
So it's the person viewing? Not the artist, or the one sharing it that defines it? Hmm. I find this a quite interesting subject as nudity isn't a bad thing. It's not equal with sexuality. It's all about situation. Is a statue from the Ancient Greek culture nudity just because the person exposed has no, or little clothing on?
I think we agree on just about all points there, S. Certainly it's the "eye of the beholder" that finds the nudity but it's the skill of the artist that leads the viewer's eye in that direction. It's a conspiracy between artist and viewer.
I was surprised, a few days ago, to find some powerful hostility toward nudity in another question. It's something I normally associate with puritanism, though much of that has passed from the puritans into modern religious practise.
It's their loss, of course, but as somebody once quipped, "Those who can't will make sure that those who can don't."
If I posted a picture of David here and asked a question about it, would you object to it? I'm sincerely trying to find the line that is acceptable so I don't make any mistakes in the future. Thanks.
Mhmm. What if the artwork is an illusion? What if what by some might be sensed nudity in reality is an optical illusion? If the composition of the artwork let's your mind see something that isn't? Is that still nudity? No human has been illustrated. Hmm.
I've seen a few of those illusion type photos. And no they aren't actually nudity to me because they are usually a different object made to look like such. But yes, they are images MEANT to be deceptive, to trick us in a way. I just see those as interesting and fun.
Nudity is unclothed bodies. It's pretty black and white to moi. :-)
Just a random thought: If a man who has had an hysterectomy on both testicles and has received no hormone replacement therapy, could an artist ever be accused of pornography if he makes a "sex tape" to be distributed exclusively to such men?
Just pointing out the question of whether an artist who might intend to have an effect on people may be unsuccessful due to the nature of the people he intends to affect.
Benedict Arnold 