I can also see dl's point, if only one side is to be shown, why not let it be the side which is more interesting.
I personally think that all of the information to discern the Common Bowline's
central structure is easily accessible from either side of the knot.
Although arguably we who know it so well
are not best to judge this (with all of our points
pro/con). We should recognize that this issue
is one that is amenable to TESTING/research,
trying one vs. the other tying & presentation
to various collections of new-to-knots (and
"
to knots" by requirement more than interest)
students --the young & restless, the old & stodgy
(boy, some of those SAR types can be so!

).
One can try the different aspects in instruction
and see how well each does --is there much of
a difference? --would there be comical (to us)
results of differing results per type of group (!)?
--or maybe a helpful indication of tying by one
method and seeing one presentation (and not
the comical one of incompatible ones!).
I would also agree with Dan Lehman that a greater portion of that information
is more directly displayed from the side typically labelled as "Rear view".
However, I do not agree this argument has enough merit per se 
to justify a reversal of nomenclature. Labelling convention is an issue
we should not be overly concerned about here.
I continue to believe --and think it worth reiterating--
that this conflict is much less felt/observed/important
than your comment implies --something that maybe
those who are steeped in knotting and history.
(And, boy, do some of the knotters seem knuts about
the tradition, yet woefully unaware of how dubious is
the literature in documenting/reporting that history!!
Again, Pieter van de Griend's
A Letter to Lester is quite
telling of how incredibly, appallingly bad has been some
of the knotting documentation --and if they got that
much so wrong, can one have confidence in the other,
so-far uncontested, right-seeming information?!)
...
By showing it.
Yes,
by showing it, Agent_Smith will have presented
how to tie various
bowlines, and the presented view
should fit with the tying (though, maybe I'm presuming
more than reading his work --to date--, which is more
the presentation of
completed knots and not how
to arrive at this?!), and I would be
taken aback if the
naturally presented view were called "back" --which is
what the, um, backside to this view deserves, in THIS
presentation.
.:. I don't hold that knots are in general so well regarded
as to carry PER KNOT notions of front/back, at much
remove from some source's presentation of them.
In the
bowline case, the ubiquity of the (wrong, IMO)
presentation gives strength to claiming otherwise;
but I don't believe that, among the
general knotting
public, there is so strong an attachment to it that would
founder a presentation contradicting this.
AND, if my opinion of ease of tying, of understanding,
of
comprehending(which is X.'s primary contention/point/interest)
the
bowline is valid, there would even be some
appreciation/thanks for having broken tradition here.
Beyond this, though, there will be issues regarding
the more complex, extended
bowlines. We'll need
("Joni's") "both sides now" viewing (but hope for
better results! --knowledge, not illusions

).
--dl*
====