we 'tards' only call it porn if it is 1) not artistic and 2) features extensive nudity. this photo is somewhat artistic and doesn't have that much nudity. it wasn't taken for the express purpose of 'oh look, boobs.'
I'm not a porn crusader-- I just get a bit angry when DDs are won simply because of a sexy girl and no skill. I get just as angry when a conceptual photograph that isn't actually good gets a DD. And while I may have my opinion there are actual traits that define art as good, and I do my best to abide by those.
:/ gotta love the infamous dA wankers. to them every and anything that is posted in an art site is art no matter what so they can excuse having their masturbating material even here. there's a reason porn is considered porn and not art and doesn't compete in movie awards. oh the hypocrisy.
Again, "good" is a pretty useless word where opinions are concerned. It either breaks the rules or it doesn't, this is a black & white issue. Since it doesn't, and it was nominated on an "art" site, I'm afraid to some, it, and others like it, must be art. It stands regardless, nudity doesn't have to piss you puritans off.
I'm by no means a puritan, just believe me on that one 'cause I think I'll get banned for going further on the subject. You first attacked "porn crusaders" by instigating a worthless comment that had nothing really to do with the art itself. I have no intentions of furthering this discussion, just know that not everything submitted to DA is art, and not all of the DDs are exactly.... expert....