[Ian Leake]

Neither Goya's The Nude Maya, or Goya's The Clothed Maya are photographs.

That’s true, neither are photographs. But you were the one who said that, “No great fine art nude has any engagement of sexuality.” This pair of paintings simply shows how specious your statement was.

Of course a nude doesn’t have to engage sexuality: take Frank Sutcliffe’s Water Rats for example. Or it may do so in a confusing manner – is Jock Sturges’ “Marine” sexual or not? (Dare I mention Nan Goldin’s “Klara and Edda belly-dancing”?) But engaging sexuality is always an option when working with nudes.

I like neither.

OK, you like neither: I like both. We’re both right.

The nude Maja is not even a FigureNUDE painting because Maja is interacting with the viewer.

All successful art interacts with the viewer in that it triggers an emotional response of some sort. To proclaim a rule that nudes should not interact with the viewer is as equally specious as claiming that, “No great fine art nude has any engagement of sexuality.” You may prefer work that follows this rule: that’s fine, but it’s just an opinion not a rule.

Neither of them seem to have much of a sexual purpose in my opinion. Who knows? I bet they may have in 1800? I am sure Goya "knew" Maya more than Joseph "knew" Mary before Jesus was born?

I’m not sure what you mean by, “sexual purpose”. The paintings exude sexuality. In fact they were both confiscated by the Spanish Inquisition who considered them to be obscene. So if Goya’s purpose was to celebrate the sexuality of this woman (or women in general) then he certainly succeeded. Indeed, your conclusion that he had a sexual relationship with the model just reinforces this point.

They are both too analog even for here.

Nonsense.