[kquote author=Rob C link=topic=83803.msg683794#msg683794 date=1385543024]It ranges from the technically exquisite to the, well - you named it. You forgot to add, to 'amateurish', the question of sexual shock value, pretty much a final resort.
TerryRichardson goes way past that as TR looks like a parody of porn actor and basically shoots a lot porn, with himself and young models and yet unlike other people who do exactly the same thing, stays respectable.
And there the call: whose opinion?
Helmut Newton did the occasional shot of himself and model on a bed, shooting the images from ceiling mirrors (early erotic selfie?) and in his time that was slightly shocking but chaste nevertheless; it became a common event for anyone with such a mirror which, by dint of being where it was, lent spěce to the concept of two on a bed.
I did girlie calendars for years but I don't remember that I ever wanted, or even felt slightly drawn to doing anything pornographic; porn defeats everything to do with charme, as the French call it. It removes the enchanting magic and, in its place, offers you a plate of uncooked horsemeat. That's for savages.
Whether it's a bunch of scrawny femmes showing how little they have in the back pages of POP/The Face, Autum Winter #03, or anything similar by any other clone, it leaves a damp, unpleasant chill on the senses.