JOCK STURGESS

Jock Sturgess is an male photographer from America who specialises in nude portraiture. Some of his work was taken at a naturist resort in California or nude beaches, does this change the way we look at his images? By adding a narrative does this make it okay?  His books have been compared to child pornography, however Sturgess stresses that he has a strong relationship with his models and the girls family, whom both consented to the images. These girls were not forced to pose for this photographs. Does this change how we look at the images? knowing that the girls felt comfortable with the photograph?

"He has photographed some subjects over a series of decades, tracing their growth into adults, as well as created images of families spanning several generations. Sturges has attracted a significant amount of controversy over his works, which some deem as crossing a boundary in using children in his erotic imagery, but he continually receives public support against such criticisms" - Artnet

I'm looking at his images to see how they would compare with mine, or if i can get any ideas from them regarding my own work.  Heres an example of his work.

The girls in the image below aren't looking directly at the camera but at the same time they also don't appear to be vulnerable. I know the image quality isn't too good but they look comfortable. It remind me of a movement before the image is taken. The obvious negative to this picture would be how young they are, but Sturgess hasn't taken pictures of them in a sexual manner. They're naked, not nude.

I think this image is worse than the one above, however I still only see it as a beautiful form/body. Her pose is too sexual, although it's a positive that she doesn't look vulnerable, i feel that Sturgess crosses this line ever so slightly.  Also I find the girl watching her rather disturbing, I get this feeling of envy or jealousy. The naked model showing off.

Why doesn't the photographer show the whole make naked?