Quote Originally Posted by Trevor Ash
"What makes it glamour shot as opposed to an art shot?"

It's personal opinion. And I woudln't expect that a satisfactory explanation can be given as to why one considers it the way they do.

This is a great photo, no doubts about that. The best answer I could give as to why it doesn't seem "art" is because it looks like a shot out of any popular mens magazine. And I don't generally associate mens magazines with art.

That's a fair and honest answer I think.
That is fair an honest and I DO understand your point and I agree to a point. It's also why I posted that picture. However, let me play devils advocate.

When I look through my photography magazines that are more "arty" or "fine art" driven, I could, and will argue a majority of those pictures look like the same pictures that I would expect to see in these magazines. IOW, I'm not convinced there's any more "art" in those pictures than ones in "popular mens magazines." They're (often) different, but IMO not anymore or less arty.

I could also point to painters from different era's and lump them into general catagories of what I would expect to see from painters of that era. Or what about artists who paint fairly realistic boudoir looking paintings? (check out: http://www.steve-hanks.com/Flash/FlashDefault.htm).

Finally, we could get into intention too. Remember JP's toilet seat? I'm sure he rolled over in his grave when that sold!

Hopefully, this subject is what the "art as photography" thread is supposed to be discussing.

Mike