| 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. |
