Letters to Domai
An interesting but little-known fact about the Trojan War is that in Homer's Iliad, Homer does not once try to describe Helen's great beauty. (A few characters do try, but they all are depicted as falling far short of the mark.) The consensus between classical scholars on this subject is that no words could properly capture her loveliness, and so any attempt would be an understatement, and therefore would be detracting from her beauty. After exploring your site for a while, I concluded in the same vein that if I could say less that nothing about the exquisiteness of your models, I would.
After the Trojans were driven from Troy, they went to Italy. The direction of this letter also turns thence. In my final year of high school, I and five of my classmates were given the opportunity to go on a week-and-a-half trip to the Land of the Boot. We traveled from the canals of Venice to the bay of Naples, seeing many interesting and beautiful sights. The most beautiful thing on the entire voyage, however, I saw in Rome.
That morning I was ranging through the hotel from friend's room to friend's room in search of a certain guidebook to Pompeii, where we were to be going the next day. After no success in each of the first four rooms I tried, I moved on to that of my friend Mary. I knocked on her door. She opened it, wearing only a towel wrapped around her; it seemed that I had interrupted her in the middle of her shower. I apologized for my ineptitude. "That's all right," she said, "I was just about to get out anyways." I stated my mission, and Mary let me in. She began to search about for the book, but realized that she was dripping all over everything and making quite a mess.
"Could you maybe look for it right now?" she asked. "As you can see, I'm a bit wet." "But of course," I replied. As I began to continue her search, she took off her towel and began to dry herself with it. I turned back in amazement.
"Oh, sorry," she said, blushing. "Am I disturbing you?" Despite her words, she kept drying. "No, not at all!" I assured her, and then launched into a majestic ode about her splendor and loveliness no, not really. That part I'm making up. But I complimented her nicely and then set about to finding the guidebook as she continued with her vigorous towelling. Frequently I would look back at her; each time she met me with a warm, impish smile. Her body was beautiful to the extreme, slender and toned, with curves joyful to the eye. Her breasts were small and well-formed, and her dark rippling hair cascaded over her shoulders like (what else could I say but) a waterfall.
Eventually she pronounced herself dry enough and came to search with me: a thrilling prospect. Working together, we discovered that the book had fallen into the space behind a dresser and with some lifting and pulling managed to retrieve it. My prize in hand, I thanked her (twice, as there were two things to thank her for) and left happily. I have many wonderful memories of that trip, of the extensive Renaissance art galleries and ancient Roman ruins, but the memory on which I look most fondly is that of that morning in Rome.
Since that time, and since seeing some of your site's incredible photos, I have thought quite a bit on the subject of female beauty, and come to a conclusion for the porn/simple nudes/fine art nudes discussion. I would say that the difference is primarily one of focus. The fine art photo is focused on the artist who takes it: the important part is not the subject matter, but the photographer's technique. A piece of art need not have any worth to anybody, as long as it has meaning to its artist.
Porn's focus is on the viewer. There is no art in taking a pornographic picture, nor is the subject taken into account as a person. The only importance of the picture is that the viewer might 'get off'. By this definition, porn need not be only pictures of people having sex (or participating in related activities), but also includes photos doctored to make something look more appealing to its viewer, such as most advertisements.
The simple nude's focus, on the other hand, is the subject of the picture itself, in this case the beautiful naked woman. The important part is that the woman is sharing her beauty, and glad to be doing it. The simple nude can also be generalized; such pictures, 'Simple Photographs' if you will, include any situation where the point of the picture is not how it is taken or why it is taken, but of what it is taken. This includes family photos, beautiful sunsets, interesting leaf-patterns, sightseeing photos, those times when toddlers 'borrow' unattended cameras and run around taking pictures of anything funny they can find (I speak from experience) and many, many other things.
From this, I can conclude that once what a simple nude is is properly understood by the general public, the popularity of the simple nude should soar far beyond that of pornography or art as more and more people come to understand that the simple nude is but a slightly different form of the pictures they take every day of friend and family. Greater understanding and freedom can only ensue.