When is a photograph a work of art?

Someone I hardly know via the internet sent me a honest question regarding my photography, asking me if there was a difference between a hot guy and a work of art. It made me think of why he asked this, as I thought they were so two very different things. To me, a hot guy is a hot guy (and may be himself, a work of art). It has nothing to do with photography. If I photograph one of these guys, then I'm privileged and honored. When I go through the contact sheets after a photo-session, I am usually trying to find images that I find outstanding in some sort of way, something that says something to me. Usually, I find that only a few images really do it for me. It is not to say that the model is not beautiful or gorgeous -- they are very much so. But what I am talking about is photography, and the art thereof. So in a hundred or so images of one model, I might be able to find just one to four images that could be considered a very good photograph, and this has to do with not just the model, but the composition, lighting, texture, mood, expression. It's difficult to say exactly in words.

As I begin the journey of compiling my photographs for the next edition of The Asian Male (2.AM), I know I will have many comments comparing it to the first book. It will not be the same, yet it will not be dramatically different. It will be an expansion, an extension. If the first book was the foundation and first floor to a language of De Stijl, then the second edition is the second floor with perhaps an added swimming pool to the main level in the same language thereof. There is something different and new, but there is something of the same that is revisited.