Welcome GUEST!      CREATE ACCOUNT - Forgot Password?

Create an account to share your experiences and more!

E-MAIL   PASS  

Auto Log-in Future Sessions (on this computer).
User Review A review of the site and any replies from other users.

Visit Met Art

Met Art (2)

Active
80
otoh (54) 12-30-11  01:48am
Rookie Badge  Talk Back  Comments  Pollster  Top Monthly User  Trusted User  Male Profile TRUST USER?   YES (41), NO (0)
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: - Lots of beautiful young models
- Good search options/tagging
- Browsing by photographer is useful
- Lots of good lingerie/outfits
- Most sets good resolution
- Amusingly pretentious set names
- Massive archive and approx 4 updates/day
Cons: - Would prefer a few more mid/late 20s models
- Age search option is daft
- Lingerie doesn't necessarily suit the models
- Some older pics quite low res
- Massive archive is bewildering
- Annoyingly pretentious set names
- Some sets too large
- Lacking in erotic content
- Videos uninspiring and soundtracked to death
Bottom Line: Met Art has been vaguely on my list of sites to try for a while, mainly because it features work from a couple of photographers I like (I tend to follow photographers rather than models), and last month's special offer gave me the incentive to sign up. There are plenty of other reviews, including TBP, which detail the specific stats on the site, so I'll be a bit more subjective here.

Firstly, the site is vast; there is so much material, so many models, so many photographers, that it's hard to know where to begin. Fortunately, the search options are good; sets are tagged so you can just type in any particular keyword - eg nylon, stockings, etc and get a number of results. Sadly this doesn't work well with multiple keywords, getting sets with any of the words rather than all, but it's still useful. Search is also available on height, age, ethnicity, country, photographer - all useful, although unlike height, where you can search on a range, age is done purely on a single year, so you can only find eg all 25yo models... but it is smart enough to find sets where the model was 25 at the time of the shoot, as opposed to now - potentially a big difference in a site that's been running for a decade or more.

My biggest issue, though - and this is quite personal - is that the material here just isn't exciting. The girls are all stunning but - although there are some exceptions - have little sex appeal to me; the concept of the site seems to be to emphasise the beauty of the models at the expense of any sexuality. Even the models who do hardcore elsewhere seem uninspired here - and the same for the photographers, eg there's quite a bit of material from Michael White and Roy Stuart, both favourites of mine, but it's a toned down version of their other stuff.

Similarly, I'm quite keen on lingerie and nylons; there is actually a lot more nice stuff here than I thought, but most of the models are too young or inexperienced to carry it off; they look dressed up, posed, in it rather than comfortable and sexy.

Reading between the lines of some of the blog posts there, I suspect both model and photographer are constrained by strict guidelines MA put on what can and can't be shown - with a veto on any kind of lascivious behaviour, so there is little teasing, no touching, and rarely even a lewd glance. They may even be getting stricter, since of the sets I did enjoy, most seem to be going back a few years. Even though the photos are of course fully nude, I've genuinely been more turned on by some of the better lingerie catalogues & sites.

As others have noted, the videos here are also insipid; drowned out by supposedly sexy sax music and the like; and unlike the photo sets I didn't really find any worth keeping.

Scoring this puts me in a bit of a quandary. It's a good, well-organised site, with a vast quantity of solid photography and frequent updates; so it would be really unfair to give it less than 80. However, this is PU and I struggle to see it as porn, or even particularly erotic or arousing - It's just too... wholesome, like a glamorous naturist site and I kind of agree with hugow that if you wanted to cure your porn addiction, this could do the job. I'm not even sure about art - to me, art is doing something unusual, creative, pushing some boundaries, which MA doesn't really - but by that definition, my last reviewed site, Juliland, is art, so maybe I'll skip the whole subject :| Anyway, a (very generous) 80 it is.

Reply To Review

Review Replies (7)

Replies to the user review above.

Msg # User Message Date

1

Capn (28) I agree with you, otoh.
It is another one of those frustratingly 'nearly' sites.
Rather than striving to crash through the barrier and make a rivetting site, they do more, more & more of the same, which obviously does work for some folk.
This only serves to add more to the frustration for the likes of ourselves wanting a step or two beyond.

What I found most frustrating was that the thumbnails for each set looked identical after a little while searching.
I think it is a problem with sites that have pretentions of 'art'.

Cap'n :0/

12-30-11  04:18am

Reply To Message

2

otoh (54) REPLY TO #1 - Capn :

Thanks for the reply, Cap'n. I agree about the thumbnails; it's not at all easy to find anything that leaps out from the sea of them while browsing.

After discussing the site with a friend, one other point occurred to me about the 'Met Art' look - that, by somehow desexualising the models, it somehow objectifies them even more; which bothers me slightly, since like I hope most folk here do, I have a huge respect for all the girls we ogle over. Would you agree, or am I just overanalysing? :|

12-30-11  07:15am

Reply To Message

3

Capn (28) REPLY TO #2 - otoh :

No, I don't think so.
I share your concerns.
Perhaps that was what gave me an element of unease whilst browsing the site.
With a few sites the personality of the model leaps out at you, which I really like.
With a lot of others it is noticeable, here it appears to be dourly supressed, in the name of 'art'.

Not good!

Cap'n. :0/

12-30-11  07:41am

Reply To Message

4

Denner (233) Met Art is our old time kind-of-site here, for sure.
And the fact that this site just keeps going on and on with so many updates is just great....but:
Like otoh points out in the bottom line area hits the fan:

"..........that the material here just isn't exciting."

Exactly!

Met Art is a goldmine for models - but it drowns in some weird kind of massiveness - too much, but not too sexy/erotic.

A lot - lately tends to be way too: la,la,la in order to keep up the massive updates. Jeeeez, no problems with massive updates....but may be it's a question of quantity/quality...

Thanks, otoh - FINE review!!!

12-30-11  09:07am

Reply To Message

5

rearadmiral (322) otoh (and I mean no disrespect for the other members who also reviewed this site), but this is the best Met Art review I've read! Like you, Met Art has been on the list of sites to consider but regularly got bumped down by something else. But thanks to your review I'm going to remove it permanently from the list. You succinctly and clearly build a case for why I shouldn't join, but you also build a case for why someone may want to join. I prefer harder sites but have nothing against soft sites, but when I read your line that the site "seems to be to emphasise the beauty of the models at the expense of any sexuality" that really made your point clear. And when you wrote "there is little teasing, no touching, and rarely even a lewd glance" that finished any interest that I may have had in the site.

I'm sure there are many people who would love Met Art's style of porn, but I'm not one of them. Thanks for saving me $30!

12-30-11  12:31pm

Reply To Message

6

otoh (54) REPLY TO #5 - rearadmiral :

Thanks readadmiral & Denner for your replies. My opinion is of course very subjective - some folk may find the stuff here exciting and sexy - but my tastes are generally pretty tame and this just doesn't work for me at all.

I would, though, again recommend my previously reviewed site Juliland - possibly art, but creative, exciting stuff.

12-30-11  04:27pm

Reply To Message

7

rearadmiral (322) REPLY TO #6 - otoh :

I understand that subjectivity makes up a big part of any score, but... what makes a better review is when the writer explains the reasons for those biases. You definitely did that. Met Art is one of the most respected sites out there but thanks to your clear explanation of why you don't like it I'm 99% sure that I wouldn't like it either.

I'll take a peek at Juliland. Thanks for the tip.

12-31-11  06:53am

Reply To Message

*Message rows highlighted in light orange are replies to replies.

Home - Sites - Users - Reviews - Comments - Categories - Forum

Contact Us - Announcements - FAQ's - Terms & Rules - Porn Review - Webmasters

Protecting Minors
We are strong supporters of RTA and ICRA, two of the most recognized self labeling organizations. Our site is properly labeled to assist in the protection of minors accessing inappopriate content. For information about filtering tools, check this site.

DISCLAIMER: ALL MODELS APPEARING ON THIS WEBSITE ARE 18 YEARS OR OLDER.

To report child pornography, go directly to ASACP!  We're proud to be a corporate sponsor.
Have concerns or questions about porn addiction?  We recommend this helpful resource.

Copyright © 2007 Ranks.com, Inc. and its licensors. All Rights Reserved.


Loaded in 0.01 seconds.