Pretty girl. Lousy photography
Natasha Schon is one of the best photographers ever on MA, and one of the best erotica photographers in the world today. Those that can't appreciate her talent are really missing out. This is erotica, this is what it looks like. The majority of Met-Art today is not erotica, it's explicit glam nudes. The difference? Erotica is suggestive, it uses light and shade, it works on the imagination, it teases, it's sensual, it emphasizes form, aesthetic, mood, setting; it's the wine dripping down the nipple, the facial close-up half-hidden by hair, the shadows falling down and caressing the body. Explicit glam nudes are... pretty much the opposite. It's flat lighting, with an emphasis on make-up, costume, and model personality.
I'm not really making a judgment on which is better, but I'm trying to elucidate the difference. Met-Art began as an erotica site, it's changed to an explicit glam nude site. This set harkens back to Met-Art's origins, an origin that I appreciate all the more as it seems something lost to the past. As is typical, consumer demand has driven the product into homogeneity. While there are certainly some extremely talented photographers here working in the "new" style (Rylsky, Arkisi, Catherine, etc.), I must admit it's utterly refreshing to see something from the old school.
Elucidate all you like. Define as you wish. Write your own dictionary. It won't change this mess. And yes, I think Schon is a great photographer.
solrage, I can understand your hankering back to the old style MA shoot... I disagree, I found them so frustrating... seeing those gorgeous women, seeing them naked, but not being able to see what I want to see, except very rarely and very indistinctly.
What I disagree with you on is the "homogeneity" remark. I don't think you could have fallen further from the actual fact... the photographers that currently contribute have vastly different photographic styles.
Personally I welcome the transformation MA has gone through. I am pretty happy with the way most of the sets are presented nowadays, in contrast to most of the sets in archives (with the exception of the "pioneer" masters Rylsky, Goncharov, Slastyonoff, etc. who blazed the trail of the explicit sets we see nowadays, so to speak).
fer_realz, as for your "frustration" with the old shoots, all I can say is that it seems that you (and others) care far more about the "Met" than the "Art" part of "MetArt," whereas for me it's the reverse. While I agree that MetArt has beautiful models, I think beautiful models can be found all over the internet on a variety of sites. For years, what set MA apart was the "Art," the fact that this was gallery-quality erotica, and it's not that any more.
As for "homogeneity," I simply meant the genre has become homogenous, not the individual styles. Just like you can have two filmmakers make a suspense thriller and utilize two different styles, you can have two photographers shooting explicit glam nudes and have different style... but films would get boring if EVERY one was a suspense thriller, regardless of how different the styles were that made them.
Obviously, you and many others welcome this transformation; I'm more indifferent to it. I don't object to the new style, I only object to the monopoly it seems to have now. Ideally, the new and the old would co-exist, but it seems too many customers favor the new style, so those few of us who appreciate the old are likely SOL, except for the once-in-a-blue-moon set like this.
IMO solrage you make a very valid point and for me the inclusion of this type of set should continue. I just commented today on a set feeling it showed the style of back when I joined 8 years ago. Why not have a wide variety of different styles. The line on solo sets between Met and Sex is down to where the fingers go. Close or in. Both use what I call gynecological shoots. While a majority may like that I commented yesterday about just how much is necessary. The real problem is the damn ratings. For us to see more sets of IRA, must she now spread the butterfly to get he rating up? If a member doesn't appreciate the "erotic" sets then why even view and then trash with a low vote. Just ignore it. As my Mom used to say. "If you don't have something nice to say, then just keep your mouth shut." Gee a day with only three "good" sets, Let me cry... Great Comment IMHO...
Thanks, swplf2. I agree with you about the "gynecological shoots" and the ratings. As I said once to Jonathan over at SexArt, the difference between art and commerce is often in how much you creatively kowtow to what the commercial demand is. So if the public wants explicit pussy shots, that's what we give them, and if you have distinctive artists like Natasha Schon out there that don't do that, then phase them out. Like I said, I don't think there is a lack of talent in the new style, but I do feel that a greater mixture between the old and new would be preferable. Sometimes in old shoots I'd come across images so stunningly beautiful I'd make them my desktop wallpaper, which I can't imagine doing with images from the modern shoots.
The difference between art and commerce is like the difference between bubble gum and medieval english.
A lovely set of a lovely woman.
Not my cup of tea because honestly I prefer more explicit. However, I can definitely appreciate both the art and the beauty in this set.
I am just left wanting so much more to be included as well...
And I don't mind if some feel this is a sexist attitude, I have to admit that I think that the way that I personally consume porn/erotica is pretty sexist.
I can enjoy this set because it is different. No, it is not explicit, but it is erotic, and the theme is unique. There are plenty of explicit images in other Metart sets today we all can enjoy. The feeling I get from this set is that she is getting drunk with us, and slowly showing more of her body while giving us sexy stares. We are participants in this wonderful chain of images (I think). If I were present I would be very pleased, and probably confused as to how I came to be in such a situation where Ira (or someone like her) was warm, welcoming, and apparently not very judgmental. And hey, at least there are breasts! Who couldn't enjoy that? You got to imagine yourself being there.
I much preferred Ira J's first set. I have long been an admirer of Ms. Schon's work, and I thought the lighting perfectly showcased the model's beauty and her body.
I felt this set was harshly lit and that it did not show off the model to her full potential, but I have never been too keen on vegetation floating in a tub with the model immersed in it.
The bathing in the the tub, the wine poured out like blood, the landing strip (or Hitler mustache), the lit candles are all fetishes.
A set dedicated to the fetishists.
A set perfectly unpleasant.
Sorry for the double posting.
I don't need a bunch of pussy shots to be able to appreciate a set.
So I don't complain about the set in itself. But I think that that face with that expression is not a winner combination.
The photographer mixup by Hipshot is, in essence, an unconscious Freudian slip, which exposes the fact that he is indeed a sexist: 'female photographers.' What a butt. Great gallery by a delicate and beautiful pixey of a model.
Obviously you can't read. I was saying that Catherine is one on Metarts best photographers but Natasha is not. Who's the sexist here? Obviously you were so eager to make a sexist statement that YOU misinterpreted my comment to fit your feminist attitude. I happen to be friends with Catherine and she would tell you I am anything but sexist. No Freudian slips here
Hey hipshot, the photographer is Natasha Schon, not Catherine, but something one should expect from your little mind..., and by the way, you're still a Nimrod.
hotte, hipshot wasn't saying that this set was shot by Catherine, he was comparing/contrasting Catherine's work with Schon's work.
I think Ira J is a fabulous beauty,and Ms. Schon has done a perfect set. She is not talking about Ira as just a model, but as a woman as well. Look waaaaay back in the archives for sets like "Tame the Tiger if You Can " all Ms. Schon's sets are about showing personality as well as beauty(Ms. Schon never omits beauty) and she often uses the techniques used by Caravaggio to do it.(Caravaggio is Incredibly famous Reniassance painter who combined realism with directional light)
This set is like sex without a climax ....
So many others are climax with no sex
Very exciting to see another set of Ira so soon. And once again, we have another set that perfectly captures the "stolen moment" feel. I really like the use of light and shadow in addition to never giving a straightforward shot. It tickles the imagination and creates desire for more.
I actually really like this kind of set. I think one of Met-Art's strengths is variety. Variety in photographers, variety in style, variety in the personality of the models (i.e. some smile easily, some don't, etc). As another poster has said, it's this variety combined with the consistent beauty of the women that keeps me subscribing to Met-Art.
I understand why some don't like this kind of set. In fact, I usually find myself agreeing with those posters on other issues. But, not in this case. Even if these kinds of sets are the minority, I say keep them coming!
Regarding this set specifically, I think Ira is gorgeous and I really do love Natasha's "shadows & light" style.
In my opinion, #124 is one of the most erotic images I've seen here in a fair while. It's images like this that keep me subscribing to this site year after year. I completely understand that many prefer to see the models more "openly displayed", but personally, it's sets like this with beautiful gems of images that flatter the beauty of the model that stand out. Such beautiful women deserve a few images that are more than just anatomical, as after a while I find one set of genitalia very much like another. I wish no one any offense in saying this. I am sure my particular preferences are very much in a minority and I am generally quite happy with the broad balance of styles and photographers presently shown.
Agree with you totally unguent- there are some very sensuous, lovely shots in this set. And also, the fact that in many of them Ira isn't directly facing the camera; I mean the profile shots, the model looking away, even the back shots, -is really nice as well. I wish more sets had angles and poses in them like that. Thank you Natasha & Ira!
Well said, Goldentrout.
IMO this is yet another miss. All these photos and we still don't know what her pussy looks like. This is clearly a woman's viewpoint all romance and no substance. All style and no real content. Candles? ok maybe but milky bathwater that obscures everything? NOT! The is supposed to be an nude erotic site. There is little of erotic value that I can see. I am not intending to be sexist. I think Catherine is one of the best on Metart but this one seems to have no concept of what is erotic to men.
+1 for you hipshot. This one, as the first set of Ira-J, is not a keeper, IMO.
Dear Hipshot131 no you don't sound sexist to me as a female but i have to agree with you whilst Ira J is a beautiful young model she does need to change photographers and Catherine,Leonardo or Arkisi should to the right trick for her in the future plus there's more ways to show a females body off without showing off all of her assets so to speak and there is a nice tinge of eroticism within her second series give the girl a break ok its only her second series and i cannot blame K the content manager either by the way hipshot131 Lily C was'nt wearing any panties either and dont take any offence by my reply either ok Cheers
dont take any offence by my reply either ok Cheers
Have I ever??? I love your comments. Bye the way Lily can were anything she wants and it's fine with me.
Natasha has been doing Met since before I became a member in 2006 and since then she has always presented a stylistic set. Like it or hate it it not our normal. Same today this is Ira's second posting both by Natasha all I will say is t will be interesting to see how the comments run today on both Ira and the style of the set. When we finally get a good clear shot of Ira totally naked and not blocked by the tub on the last page I thought she had a stunning body. Hope to see more of it again, in a slightly more normal set.
Goodness, I think everyone went to bed early tonight!
18 U.S.C. 2257 Record-Keeping Requirements Compliance Statement. All materials © 2016 metart.com. All models photographed were at least 18 years old.