I have to admit that i've never categorized my work as anything other than art...
I never want my work to look like it came out of a mens magazine. Even as a man I'm uncomfortable with the idea of my work only being considered "sexy". It doesn't sit well with me to the point of being outside my comfort zone.
My favorite critic describes my work as:
"Obviously glamour for the most part but there's definitely a wonderful fine art aspect".
I have been uncomfortable with this assessment and it was on my mind so much that I eventually Wikipedia'd the definition of Glamour Photography. Wikipedia defines Glamour in this way:
"Glamour photography is a genre of photography whereby the subjects, usually female, are portrayed in a romantic or sexually alluring way. The subjects may be fully clothed or semi-nude, but glamour photography stops short of deliberately arousing the viewer and being hardcore pornography".
One of several definitions of artistic photography provided by Wikipedia says this:
"A frequently used but somewhat vague term. The idea underlying it is that the producer of a given picture has aimed at something more than a merely realistic rendering of the subject, and has attempted to convey a personal impression".
I can't argue with the assessment of my work. I can admit, however, that my idea of glamour was way too dependent on the zillions of mens magazines I see on my way to pick up my morning breakfast everyday.
After finding more definitive descriptions of both aspects of my own work I feel a lot better about it. I will continue to see myself as an artist because in my heart it is what I am and no longer will I worry that I am straying to far from my original intent. My pictures convey my "personal impression" of my world as well as my view on the subjects that step in front of my lens. I believe I have a firm grasp on my idea of artistic and i'll damn well stick to it...