Is there a difference in posing for pornographic nudes versus art nudes?

The line between the two is generally pretty distinct in my opinion, though maybe not in the Puritan's view (I say Puritan, like a Puritan would say, "fuck," it's a dirty word- what's dirty? Dirty is the perversion of something natural.)

Nude modeling involves showing and using the body for a creative purpose, interpreting the artist's vision of a particular philosophy or even more simply his or her view of what is aesthetically appealing.

Erotic posing is quite different, as the intent is to have model purposefully elicit a sexual response from the viewer, whether it's she's nude or not. It's just as sexual for her to hold her labia or anus open (I say 'her" because I want to cover male erotic modeling at a later point, as it for her to be dressed but portraying a fetish, a dominatrix type dressed in a rubber outfit, or in pigtails wearing a short catholic school girl uniform licking a lollipop, you get the idea.
It's not about the lighting (pornography is sometimes known for bad lighting, but so are some art photographers in training), nor is it about what happens to the viewer who is seeing either, both might or might not turn the viewer on, again it's about the intent.

The painting of nudes has been around since the time of the Greek art culture as has been the art model. Would you call a Rubenesque painting depicting an art model reclining fully nude, porn? I wouldn't.

But, what would one call the image above? Is it artistic because you do not know what and why I am holding? Is it a whip? Is it the leash to a collar? Are my hands being tied?
Is it artistic because you are thinking about this now versus being fed an already digested image ready for your eyes to dower while the blood quickly flows to your nether regions?

Image above was shot by Joshua Rubin, you can view his portfolio as well as read his commentary on nudity and its exploration through artistic photography on his site: www.joshuarubin.com