I'm still contemplating whether or not this can be classified as "art." I'm going to consider it "soft porn," for the time being. I'm really not a photographer, so I'm not an expert on photograph classification. But, judging from my knowledge (which can, definitely, be proven wrong) this is "soft porn." Not really "art" in my humble opinion, but a "soft porn" image. Although the lighting and quality is very good, I still think that it's not an artistic idea. I'm just one of those people who search for the meaning of the picture, rather than just looking at it and thinking "that's pretty, looks like art to me." I usually look for the meaning, not the look of the picture. And, to me, what this picture is blatantly suggesting is sex. Just sex. Nothing else. That's just my two cents. This comment isn't meant to be neither positive nor negative. Just my opinion. That's all.
Check out Oscar Niemeyer and his works. He himself says he draws inspiration from the women. So in a way saying 'just sex' isn't right, especially when it's an inspiration to a lot of great artists. And not too many people get a chance to design a whole city, might i add Cheers!
So by those standards I could do some nice lighting and composition on a pile of dog crap and call it just as much art. The only different between than and this is that this has cleavage and open legs.