This is a very open question, so if you have a related opinion please share.
I've been into photograph lately, especially model photography of attractive women. So, would Sports Illustrated: Swimsuit Edition, Victoria Secret, etcetera... photos be considered art; or is this just me like looking at attractive women?
I'd say it depends on context. As a photographer, I notice the lighting and the set design and posing that goes into Victoria's Secret photographs. I often think the photographs are done well. If you take the photographs out of the context of catalogs or images on their website, I think they can be considered art. But when the photos are paired with captions, prices and headlines on a catalog spread or on a webpage, then the agenda becomes completely different. The photos are then used to advertise products, not to necessarily be appreciated or admired. You can do that too, but that's not the main objective.
Modeling can be art, definitely. I think it's just easier to define something as art that isn't serving a function like advertising, and is instead, aimed at making the viewer respond--as in appreciation, feeling emotion, or interpreting the piece.
I don't think modeling is art when it's pretentious shit, but when there's a meaning behind it (such as there are scenes acted out, props etc) then it CAN be. Like that pain modeling done on Dexter season 4
Art is a very vague word that many people have different opinions on. In my opinion it is expressing yourself to create something that displays imagination, creativity and meaning based on an intentional reason. The way I look at it, unless you're snapping pictures of women with unique features (e. g hairstyles, makeup, outfits) that express your creativity, it isn't necessarily art.
It's really subjective and up to personal interpretation. If one person sees it as art and another person sees it as softcore porn then both perspectives are equally valid. Its up to the viewer to decide.
Personally I kinda think models are just glorified strippers with more attractive faces. Nothing wrong with that, but I just see most of what they do as using sex to sell products and magazine. I enjoy the pictures but not for their artistic value.
Also It seems like how it is perceived depends on who takes the picture and how attractive the girl is.
Like its only art because the girl in the picture is attractive. If an average or below average looking girl took her clothes off and made the same sexually suggestive pose then not as many people would view it as artistic. They would be more likely to label it as trashy.
Also the photographer. I've seen some pictures where its just a hot girl topless and pushing her tits together in front of a white wall. People only consider it art because the guy taking the pictures is famous and the girl is hot. If I took a picture of an average looking girl holding her tits together standing in front of a white wall, nobody would see it as art.