Well, Paul, your pictures certainly provoked some discussion! Hmm, isn't that what art is meant to do? Also, you raise a valid point about religious art often depicting nudity.
However, many people feel that a painting may be art, but a photo of the same subject is porn, sort of like the old "art is in b&w, porn is in color" way of thinking. As for religious art, well, most of the saints aren't around, so there's not much religious photography. Besides, getting miracles on film could be quite a challenge for even the best photographer. And to Colin: temptation has been depicted in many ways. I've seen a version of The Temptation of Saint Anthony that was pretty erotic, featuring a vision of a row of nude females, seen from a low angle. I could well imagine the good saint feeling tempted. To sum up, though, Paul's images were mildly sensual, definitely not porn, and I don't think they served to trivialize the concept of their title. Pat White
