Since I brought this up, I guess I ought to clarify it. I was really speaking to the idea that Altaf raises: "Say something about someone you care about about what you see in them." This board is big on images that have "depth" and "meaning" (however you want to define that). I see erotica in general as covering a spectrum, from sensual portraiture to blatant sexuality, but what I was actually referring to was photos that don't try to justify themselves by appealing to some greater artistic ideal or to communicate something about the subject (or anything else for that matter), but are primarily designed to arouse by portraying idealized images rather than individuals. (I see much fashion work as being very similar - though the effect desired is usually for the viewer to identify with a more complex fantasy.)(posted 8575 days ago)As I already mentioned, I think Tom Ruddock's www.bluenudes.com is a really extraordinary example of contemporary erotica - and one that doesn't try to position itself as anything else but that. Robb Debenport (www.debenport.com) is an example of someone who shoots beautiful but somewht formulaic erotica, and attempts to justify it by categorizing it as fine art (apparently just because most of it's grainy and high-contrast), while Howard Austin Feld, (www.hafdigital.com) is similar, but even more formulaic. (However, since he has a studio just off of South Beach, he must be on to something.)
I see the purpose of this board as being to provide constructive criticism (technical, formal, and interpretave) to photographers doing any form of people photography, so I was disappointed that more people didn't respond to Steve V's posts.
And given my definition, I would never consider classifying most of the other pictures that have been posted here (that contained some nudity) as erotica. This picture here, however, would fit my definition.