When is (non-erotic) full nudity best for the scene? (SFW thread; no direct images)

Below, I link to two images on Facebook. In my opinion, the first image would have looked worse if the model wore anything. But, the second image would have looked better if she had something loose to cover her genitals. Also in my opinion, probably more than 95% of all the images I've come across would have looked better if the model covered that area in some way: by posing, clothing, loose draping, etc.

I believe full nudity is better for images that intend to portray shame. When else is it best?

And especially of the two images below: why does it work so much better in one image? Is it because of the scene's colors?
Or, what I think is more likely: because she has a quasi-equivalent to clothing that's near her, but not on her; to also be on her would look excessive?

For those of you who can't access the facebook images, please just ignore the part of my post that asks you to compare them. I'm still curious about your general thoughts as to when nudity looks better than near-nudity.

------

As promised, there are no direct images. Here are links to (censored) images.

https://scontent-msp1-1.xx.fbcdn.net …b85d9023c31cd&o​e=5D864B61

https://scontent-msp1-1.xx.fbcdn.net …516c99c74eb77&o​e=5DBDFA60

I think one of the bigger issues, particularly in the #metoo era, is when is nudity exploitive, and when is it artful. An awful lot of nudes are not done artistically, not tastefully. There are a wide range of forms - from artistic representations of females, to pin-up, to full all pornography. It largely has to do with the intent of the image. I think in the first two cases, full nudity isn't needed. In the latter, it is the purpose. It can be subtle...but often is not.

An artfully rendered nude is something that makes one stop and admire the fullness of the image. Seeing the subjects private parts whether male of female is often not the focus of the endeavor. As you look across the spectrum, getting a peep or full on view often is the focus of the "artist" effort. Its about intent. There are many great artful images where there is full nudity. And they are easy to identify. They often command a respectful response, to the subject and the manner in which it was created. It is super easy to tell when that is not the photographers intent.

having grown up in Paris where artful nudity was plentiful and almost unavoidable, I love the idea of a respectful rendition or capture of what it means to be a female, and the female form. It is possible to capture that, and do so in a non-lustful, exploitive way.

But this discussion has been going on for a long time. Sally Mann was embroiled in this topic with the pictures of her kids. Lots of opinions about it... I don't think Sally's images were exploitive or inappropriate, but many do. It's a very charged subject.