(Not anymore since I removed the images in the aftermath of an author getting sued for image use. Links are provided instead.)
In the literary world, we get a lot of dissent (I'll call it that to be polite) about what constitutes art. Pretty much, the big guns are of the opinion that if it isn't literary fiction, it isn't art. And, it seems as if it's too popular, it isn't art either, but I could be wrong on that last bit. A few years ago, Stephen King got some big deal award and the literary world was all up in arms because he wrote popular fiction and, not just that, but *gasp* genre fiction. Apparently, you can't be brilliant unless no one reads what you write.
(Creation of Man with very naked Adam=Art: http://mv.vatican.va/3_EN/pages/x-Schede/CSNs/CSNs_V_StCentr_06_big.html)
(Jon Bon Jovi naked but covering his naughty bits with Superman undies=not art? http://www.perfectpeople.net/article/1353/4183294/jon-bon-jovi/hot-in-cleveland-will-air-on-tv-land-youngstown-vindicator.htm)
But... I bet they'd take them to the Sistine chapel, or even allow them to write a report (with pictures) on Michelangelo. If you notice, in the picture above, Adam's choicest bits are all out for the world to see. The same is true of Michelangelo's statue of David. Da Vinci's Vitruvian Man also is rocking out with his cock out. I could keep going, but the point is a nice chunk of art by the masters involves full frontal nudity. I'm not suggesting that we should cover it up, rather that we don't tend to look at it sexually.
(Hot pic of Ryan Kwanten in nothing but a towel removed completely since I couldn't find anything that seemed like a legal use of it. Sorry.)
As I said, I'm not harping on the people who said the images were too racy for teens. I wouldn't have asked for opinions if it wasn't an area of concern to start with. But since then, the question has plagued me. When it comes to nudity (or near-nudity), where is the cut-off between it being sexual and not? Art and not?