Schon has talent to find beautiful girls , and thanks to her we can enjoy beauty of many young girls ,on the other hand Schon as photographer really sucks , in my opinion lack of skills and professional equipment .
I do think Kira is a beautiful model. However, I am not really a fan of Schon's works. Not because of lack of photos of the pubic areas. She just makes weird lighting choices for my taste. I feel this set is too dark. I find her use of shadow downplays Kira's natural beauty instead of raising it. To be fair, I do think this set does have a few excellent shots, but there are poor ones as well.
I do think Kira would make a great black and white model as well.
I would like to see Kira with a different photographer. Not necessarily for more explicit shots (Not that I would object if she did), but one who just has a different style and approach..
For whatever reason, Kira seems happy and comfortable with Schon. I guess poorly lit Kira is better than no Kira.
my only grievance with this set:
in a lot of pictures, Ms Schon has a pinpoint sharp wall and a out of focus model.
This... is not great.
The model was pretty but, the photography could have been better. It's hard to see the model's body when the photos are shot with dim light and lots of shadows.
Clearly a beautiful model and the light is used with care. After reviewing Kira W's galleries however and appreciating Schon's fine work, it seems she owns her. I simply wish another photographer had a chance to reveal Kira, because the Schon monopoly is content with beauty and unwilling to explore the depths of nudity.
Late to the party,stuck in a traffic jam,to counteract all the unacceptable libels written by a host of trolls whose máximum exponent is our egregious funnel-hated psychotic Hotty.
Also late to praise Natascha Schon´s work,whose understanding is not achievable for any apeman The Seller
Very monotonous set, the lighting is bad. 1 of 10. Needs better photographer
Kira is a very underrated model. If she was to walk into the coffee shop. fully dressed, every guy's eye would be on her. She is very pussy shy, but she is very beautiful.
Badniner, if I may point out... it is her photographer who is pussy-shy (and who speaks about it in Rose's interview of her). To put it more clearly, we don't know if Kira is pussy-shy because she hasn't yet worked with a photog who shoots explicit.
Not to play "know-it-all," I just wanted to clarify. (:
And yes, you are right, if Kira walked into the coffee shop, I'd be staring! (: Well, I'd be trying not to be obvious about it... LOL
If I came across Kira,I´d pass out,and Now that would be obvious.The Seller
She would probably be pissed off if you came across her, Seller.
Kira is a gorgeous super model quality woman and I'm just happy she shares her nakedness for our viewing pleasure. Thank you Kira and thanks to Ms Schon for photographing her.
Kira is quite stunning & there are some wonderful images in this set showing us the sheer beauty of her body....particularly her face, breasts and those superb shots of her pubis.
Not stamped from the usual mold. I like model and shoot both. Each suits the other.
Ms. Schon DOES seem to have that certain kind of effect on the models she chooses to work with. They all seem to fit right into Ms. Schon's photographic style.
Insufficient photos in landscape format.
You guys are nauseating! Barf! Barf, I say!
It was inevitable that your flaccid comments would eventually ruined this site, - congratulations, your psuedo-bourgeois, pretentious comments have done exactly just that.
This site, like most of its limped commenters, s..ks! Only my reverance for the old MA and the 'good old' days, so the speak, prevent me from inputing the appropriate noun and consonant, - but you "BLUE PILLERS" get the drift.
As for Ms. Schon, she has long been a 'waste of time' who obviously is unable to pedal her anti-penile garbage anywhere else but MA! If not the latter fact, - then why is it here, still being published? Obviously, no one really likes it, (look at the history of her ratings)!
Why? Because the majority of us come here to see PUSSY, - and that's the gist of it! Either for psychological and/or physical stimulation of the male hormones, that's it! Given this latter fact, it has been so obvious, for so long, that given the pretentious dribble that most of these commenters spew, they're not concerned about or even capable of being concerned about this latter fact.
Unless they're popping the "blue pill" now 2 to 3 times a day! Read the regular commentors' comments! Obviously, the 'giddyup' is gone. No matter how you deceive yourself or whatever defense mechanism you employ, the verbalizations spat out by these regular commenters, on a daily basis, could not be from a sexually healthy young to middle-age man, - no way! I read the crap for a week or two, until it reaches the "enough's enough"; (like now), - because this was the 'site of sites'!
The galleries of the 'golden years' ('07 to '12) attest to that fact. Hey, you still have to search pretty hard just to even find a single comment!
I DIDN'T subscribe to appreciate ART, (which is usually defined as "PURPOSEFUL" for the given setting.) When I desire visual taste, all I have to do is turn my head, or visit an art gallery or the like, - and NOT subscribe to an internet porn site, which is the purpose of the majority who pay their subscription fees for this site and any other for that matter.
Again, MA needs to eliminate this section, - and let the viewer/subscriber, by the rating alone, steer the photographers judgment as to what should be published. If not, you regular commenters can STICK IT!
Agreed....I'm here to see some clear, focused photos of beautiful women and their pussies. I for one, do not pine for the good old days of met where there were way too many sets featuring a hottie strolling on the beach shot with what appears to be a telescope and the legs almost never spread. What I love about the modern met is that virtually every set features multiple close ups...that's what I pay for gladly and keeps me coming back. I certainly don't care if a set like this slips in occasionally because I can just enjoy the other three and my favorites.
Now excuse me while I drag my knuckles back to my cave so I can continue to indulge in some good old fashioned pussy viewing...
Oh hotte, our dear old friend. Your grasp of reality is clearly off as always, but you cannot be blamed for that. Take my word for it friend, you need an orientation to reality.
Speaking of what this site "used to be." LOLZ I'm literally rolling on the floor laughing right now. Well, not literally or I couldn't be at my keyboard right now. But you get the picture.
My very dear friend, what MetArt used to be? Was NATASHA SCHOEN's style. Used to be you would be lucky to find ONE pussy shot in an entire set.
I would suggest to you not the blue pill, but perhaps a spliff or perhaps something of a "downer" variety. If you continue the way you are right now, you are clearly going to blow a blood vessel in your brain, and trust me, that never turns out well!
So my counsel to you, my very dear friend, is to relax, take a deep breath, and administer your downer of choice. It is clearly going to be a very, very long week for you, and believe me, I feel for ya.
I written the comment below once to you already. It certainly bears repeating.
You are quite difficult to please.
I feel like you might complain that The Scream was not painted on black velvet; and that Starry Starry Night does not have any poker playing dogs!"
Oh, where to begin....
• You subscribe to a site with "art" in its name and then say you didn't come here to appreciate art? Dude, IT'S IN THE NAME OF THE SITE. I don't know how much more plainly stated it could be.
• Natasha Schon has been featured on this site, and TLE, and MetModels / EroticBeauty, since 2002. Throughout the "golden years" you proclaim, and certainly before the comment section came into existence. Like it or dislike it, her style has been consistent throughout her photography career and has not changed.
• This site publishes four sets / movies a day, six on the first of the month. That means March, when it's done, will have the maximum 126 features. I guarantee that no one who visits this site will like and download all 126 of them. There will be good days, bad days, good sets, and bad sets. If you don't like one, chances are a better one is coming up soon.
• If you're this unhappy with the site, then I would suggest you should unsubscribe. I can empathize. It took me a long time to finally unsubscribe from the famous bunny rabbit-themed site, but when I finally realized how little I was enjoying my subscription, I moved on. Pretty simple, really. I only wish I'd done it sooner. It's your money, why waste it on something that doesn't bring you enjoyment?
• YES, I'd love to see a more explicit and sexual presentation of Kira. But Natasha Schon is the only photographer she's worked with, so clearly this is the level of eroticism that makes her comfortable with posing nude. If it's a choice between seeing Kira like this or not seeing Kira at all, I'll choose the former.
• I'll give you some credit. At least this time, instead of your usual insult salad, you said what it is that you want to see. For the life of me, I had no idea what your problem was until today.
• Dude, seriously, get a dictionary. "Pseudo-bourgeois?" Middle class in name only? "Pedal" instead of "peddle," "dribble" instead of "drivel?" Whatever intellectual credibility you're trying to project in your insulting, barely-coherent rants is ruined by your comical misuse of words.
• Happy Easter!
Checkers, Pseudo-bourgeois, middle class in name only? The dictionary is not wrong, but in today's terms bourgeois and/or bourgie are urban terms as an insult to those who are deeply engrained in middle class thinking and dismissive of the thinking of anyone else. Pedal, the photos are being pedaled out (cranked out, without thought) on this site, not peddled by an artist in a gallery. And, insult #3, pretentious dribble, like saliva dribbling from the corner of a mentally challenged persons mouth, not drivel being spoken.
Art in the name? Met-Art displays the artistic beauty of the female form. It's far from a social media outlet dedicated to the discussion of art.
I am here to admire the models. Those who come here posting comments and becoming friends through Met-Art only? Maybe there's someone in your neighborhood who wants to be your friend, but I for one do not.
This is a comments section, an area to leave your opinion. The same people commenting the same shit time and time again loses focus of what this is. Praise the model or don't, praise the photographer, or don't, tell what you like and don't like, and then go outside and interact with real people. Or switch over to your facebook page and tell your 400K fake friends about your Easter Brunch, I bet they would even like to see the photo you took of your omelet.
This is an awesome omelet, and people need to see it. Thanks for the idea. :)
Does the comment section seem overly positive at times? Sure. Repetitive, too. Regardless, it IS possible to dislike a set without throwing a temper tantrum and insulting the model, photographer, and/or the other members who like it.
I would remind hotte, with him comment about the set, and you, with your complaint about the comment section, of the exact words you used in a comment a few days ago. "More appetites are being fulfilled here than your own."
Have a wonderful evening.
I second those thoughts, Checkers. Hotte's repeated attacks on both the models and the photographers verge, at times, on unrestricted vitriol - the same kind of thing that helped you-know-who to get himself kicked off (or at least have his comments barred) from the site.
Moderation in everything, eh?
Many of your comments show that considerable thought was employed before you clicked on Post Comment.
This particular comment reminds me of what Limp Hawg Dick would have written a few years ago.
Ok , but tell us how you really feel.
Once again, a model weighing in at 106, while Emmy tips the scale at 132. There must be something magical about weighing 106, because there are models from 5'9 down to 5'2 on this site and they all weigh 106. Yeah, I have brought this up before and I said I would stop, but I always look. Why, because the stats should bring life to the model and let members know how she would measure up for real.
who cares about the weight?
Weight means nothing. Muscle is heavier than fat. Both are lighter than bones. Some g girls have heavy bones, others have light bones.
You could have two girls, same hight, same measurements, same percentage of body fat and they would still not weight the same.
Besides, no model weights '106'. Which would be fat. We see a lot of them around the 50kg mark.
If no one cared about how much the models weigh, it wouldn't be on their bio sheets. As stated above, the stats bring life to the model, at least for me.
So, what you are telling me, Grandma was right, my chunky cousin wasn't fat, she was just big boned.
I apologize for leading you to believe it was necessary for you to explain muscle weighs more than fat and bone structure is different.
If you click any model's name, it takes you to her page with all of her sets, AND a bio in pounds, inches and feet. The bio card in the zip file and from the link for biography is in kg, cm and g.
This set sucks because of bad lighting (exposure) and bad poses. Trash.
Better luck with the next set --
Whatever else there is to say about this set, and I anticipate that the comment section will be quite active talking about this one today, I have to say I am BLOWN AWAY by #86-96 and the way the low, indirect light plays with the undulations of Kira's stomach. Not just the way it makes her incomparable belly button look, but the way it highlights the ridges and crests of her whole abdomen. Beautiful.
What I knew about Kira before Elmasa: She has a wonderful navel!
What I didn't know (or remember) about Kira before Elmasa: She has a wonderful pubic mound ~ just above a great camel toe, and she has the potential for a luxuriant growth of pubes.
Another thing I do know is that Ms. Schon will never listen to a suggestion from a male, so we will never see lovely Kira's camel toe in lightweight cotton panties.
Thank you Kira, thank you Ms. Schon for SOME very nice images.
You beat me to it with the navel admiration. It seems especially nicely highlighted today. :)
I thank them both for those mound shots, few that they are. Kira is a beautiful woman. I'd like to see if DeltaGamma could get her to pose for him.
Wow, what an amazing beauty is Kira.... stunning.. excellence in erotic photography arts goes to Natasha Schon... Thanks for this masterpiece set.
Perfect. Just perfect.
This photo set has too much darkness, which does not allow the natural beauty of the model to be easily seen.
I prefer any of Kira's 5 earlier sets, which were also shot by Natasha Schon, but presented Kira better.
A gorgeous model, but I want to see her.
Also, I don't care for the photo shopping (or else, she is wearing a ton of makeup that gives an unpleasant color to her flesh).
Nor do I care for the dark background.
Did I wake up on the wrong side of the bed?
Possibly. But this is a lovely model, and Natasha Schon has, in the past, posted excellent galleries that highlighted the natural beauty of the model.
I first admired Natasha Schon for her work displaying Anna S, Olya M, and some other models, in a way that was sensuous. The use of shadows heightened the erotic feeling.
But in the current gallery, I don't think the darkness helps to display the erotic qualities of the model. Kira W could easily appear sensual as hell. Interesting face, fantastic body, the basic material is there. It just needs a better display.
Love the short blonde hair-do ... very sexy and highlights her beautiful face and eyes
Either you don't know what you are talking about or you don't understand sensual or erotic! Would you like to make love to Kira in the bright lights or the dim lights!
@Dutchman, I'd take Kira any way: bright lights, dim lights, eyes open, eyes closed.
Send her over to my house, PLEASE!
Does that answer your question?
The usual suspects will not like the lighting, nor will they approve of the background. I get the biggest kick out of reading everybody's comments.
A very smug, "I know better" kind of comment, Yukon. I like the lighting myself (and shoot this kind of thing myself), but it's not what most customers want on a porn site, and this IS a porn site.
Slightly more accurately, Greg (and by and large I agree with you, BTW) this site has developed over the years into something it was not when it began. When it began ~ or, at least, as far back into the archives as I have been able to reach since I became a member in 2010, so at least by 2002 or 2003 or so, this site was primarily "art nude" with very, very few pussy shots. Essentially, if you saw one or two pussy shots in a set, that was the exception to the rule, which was extremely soft (softer than Playboy magazine when I was a wee bit) what I would call "glamor" nudes.
Over the years, MA's content evolved to follow its clientele's tastes. By the time I became a member, Slastyonoff, Goncharov, Rylsky, Ron Offlin and Tony Murano (among other photographers) had gradually pulled MA toward a more explicit style, though there was still a fair amount of "glamor nude" like Schoen's material here.
In the six years I've been a member, the feel of the site has evolved even further in the explicit direction, which is entirely fine with me. As long as fingers and toys (and members, LOL) are kept out of the picture, I am happy with however explicit the model and the photographer want to get. And I have the feeling ~ I could be wrong ~ that MOST of the members agree with me.
Simply put, from the POV of what most of MA's photographers produce, Schoen does not fit the current mix. That being said, she has been a very real part of MA for a very long time. I totally understand why K and the rest of MA's managers respect her so much (as well as most of the members) which is why I spare her the criticism I level at other photographers I feel are not meeting their potential. Schoen has never been part of the scene I prefer and I respect that.
But back to the original point ~ this isn't a "porn" site. I think of it as "explicit erotica," myself.
I think of porn as having very little artistic intent or purpose, being merely the process of getting a girl out of her clothing and spread wide open as quickly as possible. The photographers here might or might not be artists, but they all follow a much more sophisticated and erotic MO, in my (oh-so-humble) opinion. The worst artist MA has ever run at least was trying to depict his model's beauty, and IMO porn does not have that intent.
Well said, Fer. If I may add some points....
Like Fer says, if you go back to the earliest days of the archive, I don't even know if you would classify MET as "erotica." More like an "art nude" site. Lots of placid facial expressions, photo filtering, and color-toned lighting. The comment section would probably be pretty outraged if some of those sets were published today.
But as time went on, models and photographers retired, and new models and photographers took their place, MET's look evolved. I came aboard sometime in 2006, and at that point, you'd probably classify it as a slightly more explicit alternative to Playboy. But still, pretty tame by today's standards.
I'm sure MET reviews and revises its standards on a regular basis. A site doesn't last this long (and expand into a whole network of sites) without very strong membership numbers, and they have to evolve with the times to keep up with changing tastes. It's definitely more explicit today than it was when I first joined up, but it still hasn't teetered over the edge from erotica into porn. Everything they do, every set they publish, still "feels like MET."
All that being said, Natasha Schon's work still has a home here, and I'm glad for that. Sure, it seems quaint by today's standards, even those put forth by MET. But her work has been featured on this site almost since the beginning, and she helped lay the foundation for what this site has become. If posting her sets bores or angers some members, that's a shame, but for others, maybe her style is a trip down memory lane.
Would I still be a member here if this were the standard for every set published here every day? Probably not. But it's a nice throwback to see a set like this every once in a while.
Well, I somewhat agree with you but the style of the site has been losing its class and appeal since 2014. Up till then it was artistic and erotic, now you have about 40% unispired direct pussy shots in each set. Makes me regret my lifetime membership.
You gave a good overview of the history of MetArt. Indeed in the beginning it was more or less a David Hamilton site (soft focus, dreamy atmosphere) with just a few explicit sets.
When it comes down to the dreamlike sets I think "Duetto" with Anna S and Olya M is truly a masterpiece. I don't think "Duetto" qualifies as porn - meaning you could imagine these pics hanging in a gallery of erotic art. There is an atmosphere of sadness, loneliness and melancholy where almost all the pics are drenched in. The nudity of the girls helps to express the emotions mentioned above (and yes, it's also arousing but that just comes 2nd or 3rd place). As with David Hamilton there's a certain level of Kitsch, but I certainly do not dislike that.
This set with Kira I do not like. Not because it's too dark, but because it's not dark enough. It does not qualify as porn, but it does not qualify as erotic art either.
Having said that, I think most galleries on MetArt qualify as porn. I don't mean this disrespectfully, but the first purpose of the nudity on this site is to make the members masturbate. The models are well aware of this purpose and seem to like it.
In my opinion there is good and bad porn. Bad porn is not about not getting you horny, but about a lack of morality and promotion of violence (forced blowjobs ect). Good porn is about happiness and excitement. Because of it's lack of range in emotions, even the best porn will never be art. It will always stay a bit superficial. Imagine a girl trying to express all the pain and jealousy she feels when she thinks about her sexlife. Would it still be arousing? You would probably wind up with a Frida Kahlo-painting - which is art for sure, but it will never be porn.
Most erotic art leaves me indifferent - Duetto being one of the exceptions. You get a lot of silhouettes but no real mystery or intimacy (Duetto has plenty of both).
I would suggest that there is some very good artistic porn out there, or at least closer to the art you describe, but you need to know where to find it. SexArt in the MET network, FrolicMe (my girlfriend's favorite), X-Art, Joymii, 21Naturals... all have some excellent content with beautiful women and high production values.
Beauty and eroticism – simply stunning. Natasha Schon captures Kira's femininity and sensuality perfectly.
Rose, DeeDee, Rocky46 you know what you speak about!
She has indeed. This may be the nicest set of Kira W. Beautifully lit and presented: this is truly erotic art.
I suspect the critics won't approve of the unusual presentation, or the lack of gynaecological close-ups, but this is what sets Met-Art apart, daring to do something different.
Floral, rather than gynecological.
The vulva of a young woman is the most beautiful and fascinating flower in the world and it's quite normal to deplore its absence here.
To me; Natasha doesn't just propose pictures of beautiful girls... She conceives, sees and proposes feminine beauty from a feminine perspective with pride and imagination... for which, not shooting pictures only but pretty much praying.... Man , observing from exterior, may have the advantage of appreciation in whole. You can get this sort of things only in MA.
I don't care about gynacological close-ups. But I do appreciate a gallery where the model is presented to her best advantage.
I don't think this is Natasha Schon's best work. Not even close.
But different people can have widely differing opinions.
And I can live with that.
18 U.S.C. 2257 Record-Keeping Requirements Compliance Statement. All materials © 2017 metart.com. All models photographed were at least 18 years old.