Is There an Artistic Close-up Crotch Shot?

Away

Well, is there?

In a recent post Dr. L wrote about the taboo of the crotch shot.

"... we sought to capture the artistic crotch shot. To us that meant the shot had to be unintentional, coincidental, not blatant and gynecological. The latter shot makes me uncomfortable, makes me cringe, in fact"

So, can there be a close-up crotch shot that is artistic, yet not blatant and gynecological? Have you seen one?

Jack in the Pulpit no IV, 1930

Georgia O'Keefe

Of course I can always think of Georgia O'Keefe's paintings of flowers and waterfalls. They are beautiful paintings that obviously look like feminine genitalia, yet are protected by the layer of innocence of a reference to a non-sexual noun.

Ice Cave
Georgia O'Keefe

I did not have time to look for examples for this post, but I know there are artistic representations of the phallus in art seen as light houses, mushrooms, etc. Can there be an artistic photo of the male bits as well? Does it mean something different if the man is aroused or flaccid? I find the male anatomy beautiful as well and believe that just because his genitalia is externally visible, as is his arousal, it should still be celebrated in art.

I've heard someone say that making a nude photo printed in black and white makes it closer to being art. I disagree with the premise, but she had an interesting point. Lets say I took a black and white crotch shot, either gender, and used a dark background, popped the contrast so there were rich dark shadows and the highlights almost faded to white. The lighting created strong shadows and sensual curves from the lay of the light. Could it be art?

Waterfall
Georgia O'Keefe

Is a crotch shot objectifying the model? By focusing on the core of their sexual identification, are we reducing her to being a "pussy" and him being a "cock?" If that is the case, what about a photo of a "body scape" that only shows a hip, a breast, a shoulder, or another body part, isn't that potentially objectifying the model? Wait though, those body parts are not (unless it is a fetish) a core sexual trigger that changes the expectations and reactions of the viewer of the art. Does making content blatantly sexual photos, or at least anatomically sexual photos, objectifying?

Maybe part of the issue is reducing all such photos to the term "crotch shot." If I used the terms "whore" vs. "sex worker" vs. "lady of the night", we get three very different emotional senses for the concept covered. The place I work is currently "downsizing." The management uses the terminology, "right sizing to ensure synergistic efficiencies are gained." I call it "getting laid off." If we call it a "crotch shot", are we already devaluing the artistic message of the content by prejudicing the viewers expectations?

This is a frustrating topic for me since the subject matter is naturally erotic and artistically beautiful. How can it be artistically shared with out it crossing over to porn? Is this something that may be so private that to appreciate its beauty, it can only be shared in the live moment of intimacy, not with a bigger audience?

In light of 2257, I hesitated to put up a photo of any close up crotch shots. I don't want to deal with all the BS to protect myself.