Hmm, can I ask you a few questions (seriously, I'm trying to understand the reasoning here):
1. Is it a problem that she is naked, or that it is a woman? 2. In both cases, why is it a problem?
3. If a photo of a naked human is automatically 'objectification', the same is valid for photos of other living beings? (wildlife, kittens, etc.?)
4. Objectification is a personal stance. You can not know what others see here, only what you see. If this is objectifying for you, that tells something of your mindset, you know? (e.g. what I see here first is the beautiful light, and an expression of fear/shock in her eyes... yes, I see beauty, but I also see a person - these two are not mutually exclusive)
Ok, so we agree nakedness can be portrayed in different ways, and some are objectifying while others are not. What we apparently disagree on is that this objectification is not an objective (lol) thing, but a very subjective one - the same photo can be viewed differently by different people - and indeed is.
As you said, read the comments here. I read them, and most of them just cherish the beauty of the photo. Some of them are even quite touched: >I have not seen a more poetic, sweet and endearing photo of a beautiful naked woman before. It's so sweet that I can't be coherent with my thoughts... you really touched me with this. Personally, I saw here firstly emotion and light, and judging by the comments obviously we can't say I'm an exception.
I agree objectification is a problem, and there are plenty of tasteless nothing-but-porn pictures on dA, but in this case I can't agree with you. In this photo I see much more, and thus - for me - it is not objectifying. For you, this is obviously linked to sex. For me (and I'm the man here, so I should be targeted audience ), this one is certainly not. It is about the beauty of the woman bathed in the most awesome light. In addition, as a photographer, I can't help but be drawn to the skill of the execution of the photo (which is why I am watching Enigma, because unlike most people who shoot models, he does an amazing job!)
For the author, it also is not objectifying, as he is a professional who was hired by the model to make a photo according to her wishes.
Now, for the model I can not speak. I know women who like to take naked/boudoir photos of themselves in order to spark a feeling with their partners, or just to have a memory of themselves when they looked young and great (in their eyes!). It's their wishes and their thoughts, and I don't think anyone has a right to tell them that that is wrong. Don't you agree?
If the model just wants to sell the image of her body (and never forget that that's an if, it's what you can only assume), then yes, that is contributing to the bad kind of objectification. And that also means you're 'barking up the wrong tree', so to speak. And even if that were the case, you don't really know the girl, so I don't think you can judge her. Our lives are much more complex than is obvious, and it's all too easy to be judgmental of people we know nothing about.
About a few things you mentioned: >you theoretically can objectify men but that would cause no harm... That, my friend, is a double standard right there > i have enough social awareness to identify what is the appeal to something to the masses I would argue that this might be untrue, unless you are defining "the masses" to suit your argument. No true Scotsman? In the very least, it's a broad (and unfounded) generalization.
This is a gorgeous model but I can't help but feel that her facial expression doesn't fit the rest of the image. She tries to be sexy and seductive with her expression, maybe with a hint of daring temptation, but her body in that lighting tell me she should be soft, sensual and more beautiful than sexually appealing. I find that her body is the art that her face can not expresses.