These are moody, which satisfies the definition of fine art photography in any book. I like them for that quality. That said, I think the some of the moodiness comes from the negs being fogged around the edges. Am I wrong, is that an effect you added? It looks to me like maybe you got a little light spill in your darkroom.

I don’t subscribe to the boobs and bush only school of thought. If you’ve been watching my posts, you will have noticed that many of my offerings are really portraits or ‘clothed nudes’. There is just as much eroticism in a suggestive portrait, I think, as in a full frontal depiction. I’m with you on the suggestiveness you champion. Good on you.

Anyway, about defining fine art photography:

Nearly anything can be called such. I’ve seen total, and I mean total, crap hanging in museums. We all have. You have a look at a photo that you just paid 20.00 to come in and see and say to yourself or whomever you are attending with, “fock, I could have and have done better than that”. Why is that piece in this museum? I have no answer. The author isn’t known to me, what gives?

Well that is called fine art. Not to say that all are like that, but just saying that (my quote) “Art is whatever you hang on the wall”. Saying something is not art is denigrating the very club you wish to be in.

I agree with you that there are these divisions of fine art, such as you mentioned, figure, bodyscapes, chiaroscuro, et al. They all have great merit and are specialized in by many photographers. Then there’s landscapes, still art, macro, architecture and many more categories that fill the definition.

But it’s all someone’s art. As was uttered by Jim Carrey in his grinch movie, “one man’s garbage is another man’s potpourri”

That’s a great way to look at it. If it stinks, slowly move away.