Chuck, Yes, it is nice to discuss something without arguing about it. As I said, this is a complex topic and probably never-ending as far as POVs go. I know all about Mapplethorpe (I'm a fashion photographer), and although I don't find his work particularly attractive, I certainly wouldn't deny him his right to do it. But in the end, he's still using our prejudices and sensibilities to add 'impact' to his images. Actually, technically speaking, he's an excellent photographer, and being gay, he obviously has a point to make. I have no problem with that. But personally, I find more 'art' in landscapes by Ansel Adams or portraits by Richard Avedon. The difference being that these photographers take everyday things like mountains or people and turn them into something beautiful. They have no need to use 'shock value' to provoke a reaction. Hmmm.... I said 'I find more art in....' That's not strictly true. Mapplethorpe could be considered every bit as artistic as Avedon. Which one you prefer is down to personal taste. Re the image by Georgous, I doubt if he was trying to shock. I think he just liked the look of a female in uniform. Nothing wrong with that. It's a common enough slant on pinups and women in general. Is it art? Well, I won't answer that one. I'm smart enough to know that there is no answer. My own personal view of art is that it should be original, well-executed and deeply felt. Not that any of that guarantees art, but they're all necessary ingredients for starting out. Mind you, being in the business of creating imagery myself, I'm slightly cynical about the whole 'art' thing. Especially nowadays when the value of many pieces of art is decided by the market and the art dealers. I've been told I'm 'so artistic', when most of the time, I'm just churning out stuff for clients. LOL. mac