Photographer
ArtisticGlamour
Posts: 3846
Phoenix, Arizona, US
I saw an old thread in the model section with this question...and it seemed to spark some good conversation. So, what is "Met Art style" shooting? Is it art or porn? Tasteful or not? Would it fit in the Mayhem rules and guidelines?
Thoughts?
I personally like the "style", as it reminds me of the glory days of the Penthouse or Playboy "girl next door"-type centerfold. But that's just my opinion.
Photographer
M-A-R-C
Posts: 178
Norwich, Connecticut, US
It's high-quality softcore porn. Truly beautiful models, as opposed to Barbie dolls with big fake boobies. And photographers with real talent. Lot's of vagina shots though. So... high-quality softcore porn.
Photographer
Art of the nude
Posts: 12067
Grand Rapids, Michigan, US
ArtisticGlamour wrote:
I saw an old thread in the model section with this question...and it seemed to spark some good conversation. So, what is "Met Art style" shooting? Is it art or porn? Tasteful or not? Would it fit in the Mayhem rules and guidelines?
Thoughts?
I personally like the "style", as it reminds me of the glory days of the Penthouse or Playboy "girl next door"-type centerfold. But that's just my opinion. I don't really think of most of what I saw there a couple years back as either. More like well shot explicit glamour.
Photographer
ArtisticGlamour
Posts: 3846
Phoenix, Arizona, US
Exactly. I'm thinking the style seems to be more of a lightly-erotic "glamour-nude". Seems very similar to many of our current POTD 18+ images. I don't think I'd rate it as "porn" at all...(but I'm sure in some cultures it would).
Wouldn't most "met-art style" images fit the Mayhem guidelines?
Because the "style", the upbeat-lighting, and the technical expertise is kinda what I'm working toward...kinda lLike the "centerfolds" of the glory days. I don't find it tasteless just because it's not B&W and there's a vagina in the shot, any more than many of the 18+ POTD images.
In general, it's a style of well executed glamour-nudes...(to me).
Photographer
Jerry Nemeth
Posts: 33355
Dearborn, Michigan, US
ArtisticGlamour wrote:
I saw an old thread in the model section with this question...and it seemed to spark some good conversation. So, what is "Met Art style" shooting? Is it art or porn? Tasteful or not? Would it fit in the Mayhem rules and guidelines?
Thoughts?
I personally like the "style", as it reminds me of the glory days of the Penthouse or Playboy "girl next door"-type centerfold. But that's just my opinion. There is one model in my portfolio who had a Met Art shoot. She has her clothes on. I also photographed another model who later had a Met Art shoot.
Photographer
Glenn Hall - Fine Art
Posts: 452
Townsville, Queensland, Australia
...I note that the majority of Russian Photographers that shoot for Met-Art beat any western wannabe hands-down and demonstrate legit thinking and harmony with lighting/props that are actually complimentary to a model's physique or the "feeling" wishing to be portrayed.
But that is my biased opinion as I am inspired by Russian artists and have an Estonian heritage.
...the downside for me and again an opinion, is that I think that the site promotes underage or the appearance of underage models and once the majority of their popular Romanian/Ukrainian models turn 18, they are given the big "A" and replaced with new blood that have more of a "nubile" look. There are of course, the odd adult model thrown in to appease any digression towards thinking that this site caters for the pedo market.
Is the Met-Art style porn for me? Certainly is...most of their image sets for the models are of leg spreads and smiling vaginas. It also, is not obviously a hardcore porn site although the company does offer porn videos (and related Hires images to those sessions) such as lesbians getting it on or being rubbed with oil.
Photographer
Brian Scanlon
Posts: 838
Encino, California, US
Is advertising a "Met-Art" type shoot against MMs terms of service?
Photographer
Jerry Nemeth
Posts: 33355
Dearborn, Michigan, US
Glenn Hall - Fine Art wrote:
...I note that the majority of Russian Photographers that shoot for Met-Art beat any western wannabe hands-down and demonstrate legit thinking and harmony with lighting/props that are actually complimentary to a model's physique or the "feeling" wishing to be portrayed.
But that is my biased opinion as I am inspired by Russian artists and have an Estonian heritage.
...the downside for me and again an opinion, is that I think that the site promotes underage or the appearance of underage models and once the majority of their popular Romanian/Ukrainian models turn 18, they are given the big "A" and replaced with new blood that have more of a "nubile" look. There are of course, the odd adult model thrown in to appease any digression towards thinking that this site caters for the pedo market.
Is the Met-Art style porn for me? Certainly is...most of their image sets for the models are of leg spreads and smiling vaginas. It also, is not obviously a hardcore porn site although the company does offer porn videos (and related Hires images to those sessions) such as lesbians getting it on or being rubbed with oil. There are Met Art models that are older than 18. I also know of American models that have been photographed for Met Art.
Photographer
afplcc
Posts: 6020
Fairfax, Virginia, US
ArtisticGlamour wrote:
I saw an old thread in the model section with this question...and it seemed to spark some good conversation. So, what is "Met Art style" shooting? Is it art or porn? Tasteful or not? Would it fit in the Mayhem rules and guidelines?
Thoughts?
I personally like the "style", as it reminds me of the glory days of the Penthouse or Playboy "girl next door"-type centerfold. But that's just my opinion. Varies between what I'd call glamour nudes and high quality soft-core porn.
Ed
Artist/Painter
MainePaintah
Posts: 1892
Saco, Maine, US
Yeah, I would call Met-art "glamporn"!
It is soft porn photos masquerading as glamour photograpy!
Most of the POTD +18 would fit right in a Met-art photoshoot.
Photographer
ArtisticGlamour
Posts: 3846
Phoenix, Arizona, US
Brian Scanlon wrote:
Is advertising a "Met-Art" type shoot against MMs terms of service? I would compare it almost exactly to casting for a "playboy style" shoot.
But, that is the question. Some folks seem to consider it soft porn, but from the few examples I have seen I don't see much that exceeds our usual 18+ POTD photos. Pretty much like a tasteful "playboy style" glamour-nude...in pretty much of a classic Centerfold style. I am assuming that all the models are 18+.
Photographer
Cherrystone
Posts: 37171
Columbus, Ohio, US
Art of the nude wrote:
I don't really think of most of what I saw there a couple years back as either. More like well shot explicit glamour. When someone's knees are three zip codes apart, & the neither regions are well lit, it's porn. Soft perhaps, but still porn.
Photographer
Veit Photo
Posts: 667
London, England, United Kingdom
Glenn Hall - Fine Art wrote:
...I note that the majority of Russian Photographers that shoot for Met-Art beat any western wannabe hands-down and demonstrate legit thinking and harmony with lighting/props that are actually complimentary to a model's physique or the "feeling" wishing to be portrayed.
But that is my biased opinion as I am inspired by Russian artists and have an Estonian heritage. So the Russian porn photographers who shoot for Met-Art are better than any western photographer?
I fail to see how cheap online porn can inspire such feeling 
Sure, the photography in this style is consistent and lit to suit its purpose. But the main convention of porn photography is that you have to be able to see everything so that you can leave your imagination at the door. If that's not a meagre premise for a supposed art form then I don't know what is.
Are pornographers falling themselves in a race to develop new technique and push their craft forward? Certainly not to the same extent as fashion photographers.
Photographer
Veit Photo
Posts: 667
London, England, United Kingdom
ArtisticGlamour wrote:
I would compare it almost exactly to casting for a "playboy style" shoot.
But, that is the question. Some folks seem to consider it soft porn, but from the few examples I have seen I don't see much that exceeds our usual 18+ POTD photos. Pretty much like a tasteful "playboy style" glamour-nude...in pretty much of a classic Centerfold style. I am assuming that all the models are 18+. There are some big differences to Playboy:
The models are not the curvaceous women favoured by Heff.
Met does not have the same budget for makeup or properties.
Met retouch does not border on fantasy and steers away from soft focus and other potentially alienating devices.
But to answer the OP, the main characteristic of this style is waif-like models and a more naturalistic approach to shooting.
Photographer
ArtisticGlamour
Posts: 3846
Phoenix, Arizona, US
Veit Photo wrote:
But to answer the OP, the main characteristic of this style is waif-like models and a more naturalistic approach to shooting. I do love a "naturalistic" (and well lit/saturated) style.
And, I'm finding it VERY interesting how some folks define what is and isn't "porn".
I guess I'll have to start using a tape measure to measure "zip code" distance between the knees. I still like the Mayhem 18+ POTD rules as as pretty good guide, myself. And -most- "playboy style" or "met-art style" images would meet those requirements...from what I've seen.
Mayhem wrote:
Mature Images - Defined
The following represent image types that are allowed on Model Mayhem but must be marked "M" by their owners and must follow the Keep Model Mayhem Worksafe rule:
- female nipple or areola
- bare buttocks (thong or not)
- flaccid penises
- pubic area (whether hair is present or not)
- implied sexual activity
- bondage
- depictions of blood
- depictions of violence
- depictions of drug use
- see-through or semi-transparent clothing or body paint which shows any of the above
- profanity
NOT Allowed on Model Mayhem
The following represent image types that are NEVER allowed to be posted on Model Mayhem:
- spread shots (vaginal or anal. Typically this is when fingers are used to spread, but other instances may be inappropriate as well.)
- erect penises (must be completely flaccid) covered or not
- explicit sexual content
- any and all penetration of vagina or anus
- shots that emphasize primarily the genitals or anus
- shots with bodily fluids (referenced in a sexual / fetish manner)
Moderators and administrators will consider factors including, but not limited to, framing, composition, surroundings, and total effect. I think the average playboy centerfold image from the glory years of the 60's and 70's would surely be allowed, correct? I hope so, because that's the eventual style I seek to develop in my own work. Natural, upbeat lighting and well saturated and beautiful images of the female form. Limits as-per above guidelines.
Photographer
4 R D
Posts: 1141
Mexico City, Distrito Federal, Mexico
I think this discussion is pretty silly. "Met-art nude" is already a label by itself.
Photographer
ArtisticGlamour
Posts: 3846
Phoenix, Arizona, US
4 R D wrote:
"Met-art nude" is already a label by itself. But, is it much different than 18+ POTD? Could I shoot (for both) and have the images accepted here on Mayhem? Simple lightly-erotic Glamour-nudes...and not really "porn", Yes?
Or is it to "subjective" for a definitive answer?
For those who are fairly new to the glamour-nude and POTD 18+ type images (like myself) and want to make sure to get off on the right start...there is a POTD 18+ thread here...
https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=547713
2257 info here...
https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=447759
Photographer
Brian Scanlon
Posts: 838
Encino, California, US
We're getting comparisons between Met-Art and Playboy. When I say Playboy I talk of the print magazine particularly because, as of now from what I understand, what you find online is being done under license and is not under Hef's editorial guidance. If you look at Met-Art's website as of when I posted this post: http://guests.met-art.com/ and look at the first dozen images below the banner I would easily say that half of them would never have a chance getting by Hef. They could make it into Penhouse, but not Playboy. Disclaimer: I am not Hef nor do I or have I ever worked for Playboy or any associated companies so you can take my opinion with a large grain of salt.
Photographer
Jerry Nemeth
Posts: 33355
Dearborn, Michigan, US
Brian Scanlon wrote:
We're getting comparisons between Met-Art and Playboy. When I say Playboy I talk of the print magazine particularly because, as of now from what I understand, what you find online is being done under license and is not under Hef's editorial guidance. If you look at Met-Art's website as of when I posted this post:
http://guests.met-art.com/
and look at the first dozen images below the banner I would easily say that half of them would never have a chance getting by Hef. They could make it into Penhouse, but not Playboy.
Disclaimer: I am not Hef nor do I or have I ever worked for Playboy or any associated companies so you can take my opinion with a large grain of salt. I know the model in the video. 
Photographer
Dan Howell Tearsheets
Posts: 572
Jersey City, New Jersey, US
Brian Scanlon wrote:
We're getting comparisons between Met-Art and Playboy. When I say Playboy I talk of the print magazine particularly because, as of now from what I understand, what you find online is being done under license and is not under Hef's editorial guidance. If you look at Met-Art's website as of when I posted this post:
http://guests.met-art.com/
and look at the first dozen images below the banner I would easily say that half of them would never have a chance getting by Hef. They could make it into Penhouse, but not Playboy.
Disclaimer: I am not Hef nor do I or have I ever worked for Playboy or any associated companies so you can take my opinion with a large grain of salt. I personally know 2 past Met-Art models who have been in European editions of Playboy on more than one occasion, not that Playboy is the ultimate standard of beauty (IMO).
Photographer
ArtisticGlamour
Posts: 3846
Phoenix, Arizona, US
I'm not even sure where we are anymore. If Met-art is considered "porn" and I have to be concerned about the distance between a models knees, and the softness of the focus, and amount of saturation determining if an image is "art" or "porn"...it kinda blows the whole concept of the (18+) "beautiful natural free-flowing female form" photoshoot all to hell. Next the "escort" threads will all be about lawyer-escorts with tape measures. Hell I'm just an amateur, but it sounds like I need a staff of corporate lawyers on retainer just to shoot a nude these days. http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/oralargumen … GenUSA.wma Met-Art wrote:
18 U.S.C. § 2257
The models, actresses and other persons that appear in any visual depiction appearing or otherwise contained in this Website (MET-ART.com) were over the age of eighteen (18) years at the time of the creation of such. MET-Art hereby certifies that this website, and all graphic images associated therewith, is EXEMPT from both the recordkeeping and labeling requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 2257, because no images of "actual sexually explicit conduct" are contained within. All photographers / producers are required to submit proper documents of the model, stating that her age is over 18, when submitting photos, and movies to MET-ART.
Photographer
Brian Scanlon
Posts: 838
Encino, California, US
Dan Howell Tearsheets wrote:
I personally know 2 past Met-Art models who have been in European editions of Playboy on more than one occasion, not that Playboy is the ultimate standard of beauty (IMO). A.I said nothing about the quality of the model on the pose.
b. European Playboy not under Hef's editorial direction rather a license.
Photographer
PTPhotoUT
Posts: 1961
Salt Lake City, Utah, US
As I see it in the MM rules, most MET Art is OK. The pics are open leg, but not spreading the labia or but cheeks. However, MET Art does include close ups which would not be allowed to be posted on Model Mayhem. As there is no sexual component in MET Art, I don't see that as being pornography as defined by MM. But your best bet would be to contact a moderator.
MET Art does have other sites that are sexual in nature. Soliciting work for those would be a definite violation of MM rules.
All MET Art submissions require jpegs of the 2257 records be submitted with the pictures. This is a fact.
Photographer
ArtisticGlamour
Posts: 3846
Phoenix, Arizona, US
PTPhotoUT wrote:
All MET Art submissions require jpegs of the 2257 records be submitted with the pictures. This is a fact. Similar to the Mayhem 18+ Reminder?
http://www.justice.gov/criminal/ceos/su … tions.html
I'm new to the 18+ submittal part of Mayhem, so I'm not fully sure where this is necessary. Does "Playboy style" or "Met Art style" (glamour nudes) require a 2257?
Miller test wrote:
The three-pronged Miller test is as follows:
Whether the average person, applying contemporary adult community standards, finds that the matter, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interests (i.e., an erotic, lascivious, abnormal, unhealthy, degrading, shameful, or morbid interest in nudity, sex, or excretion);
Whether the average person, applying contemporary adult community standards, finds that the matter depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way (i.e., ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated, masturbation, excretory functions, lewd exhibition of the genitals, or sado-masochistic sexual abuse); and
Whether a reasonable person finds that the matter, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Any material that satisfies this three-pronged test may be found obscene. "the average person, applying contemporary adult community standards"...WTF.
Photographer
Darren Sermon
Posts: 1139
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Brian Scanlon wrote:
Is advertising a "Met-Art" type shoot against MMs terms of service? I couldn't care less but I'm sure Internet Brands, Inc. thanks those who care to police their websites for them at no cost ; )
Photographer
Hector Fernandez
Posts: 1152
Mexico City, Distrito Federal, Mexico
Its porn, softcore but porn and they sell child porn, its not that the girls "look" young, the girls are young.
Grigori Galitsin one of his most prominent contributors was charged and spent some time in a Russian jail due to shooting 16 y.o. girls that were forced to commit lesbian acts. And not only that, in the trial it was found that he even shoot 14 y.o. girls for "private collectors" The thing is that under the Russian (old soviet law) you could use 14 y.o. girls for posing for art (meaning paintings, sculptures, fine art photography, etc) but this guys used that holes in the law to do porn they mislabelled as art.
Met-art says that Galitsin lied to them and that they were victims too and all the horseshit but the fact is that many pictures done by others included under age girls. As a side note the prosecution were not able to demonstrate beyond doubt that the whole met-art operation is funded with money of drug traffic by the italian-russian mafia.
Photographer
nyk fury
Posts: 2976
Port Townsend, Washington, US
MainePaintah wrote:
Yeah, I would call Met-art "glamporn"! that nails it, in my opinion. there are some pretty damn good-looking models in that genre, but the result is utterly uninspiring.
Photographer
ArtisticGlamour
Posts: 3846
Phoenix, Arizona, US
Hector Fernandez wrote:
Its porn, softcore but porn and they sell child porn... According to Met_Art rules of submission that is not true.
But I am not a Met-Art subscriber or "expert" to know what they may be selling...so, I have to ask how do you know what they sell? You have facts or personal experience to back this up? I call "bullshit" until you back that up with some facts.
Met-Art wrote:
18 U.S.C. § 2257
The llamas, actresses and other persons that appear in any visual depiction appearing or otherwise contained in this Website (MET-ART.com) were over the age of eighteen (18) years at the time of the creation of such. MET-Art hereby certifies that this website, and all graphic images associated therewith, is EXEMPT from both the recordkeeping and labeling requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 2257, because no images of "actual sexually explicit conduct" are contained within. All photographers / producers are required to submit proper documents of the llama, stating that her age is over 18, when submitting photos, and movies to MET-ART.
Photographer
Glenn Hall - Fine Art
Posts: 452
Townsville, Queensland, Australia
Hector Fernandez wrote:
Its porn, softcore but porn and they sell child porn, its not that the girls "look" young, the girls are young. ...was beginning to wonder if I was the only who had my head out of my butt.
I call the Met-Art "style" for what it is, legalised kiddie porn with "models" sourced from the Baltic states...regardless of the odd adult thrown in to give a feeling of legitimacy.
Photographer
Glenn Hall - Fine Art
Posts: 452
Townsville, Queensland, Australia
ArtisticGlamour wrote:
Hector Fernandez wrote:
Its porn, softcore but porn and they sell child porn... According to Met_Art rules of submission that is not true.
But I am not a Met-Art subscriber or "expert" to know what they may be selling...so, I have to ask how do you know what they sell? You have facts or personal experience to back this up? I call "bullshit" until you back that up with some facts.
he just did numnuts...can't you read?
Photographer
ArtisticGlamour
Posts: 3846
Phoenix, Arizona, US
Glenn Hall - Fine Art wrote:
...was beginning to wonder if I was the only who had my head out of my butt.
I call the Met-Art "style" for what it is, legalised kiddie porn with "models" sourced from the Baltic states...regardless of the odd adult thrown in to give a feeling of legitimacy. Bullshit.
Do you have some factual basis for that accusation... or is it just that the models don't have over-sized fake tits so -you- think they are under 18+ ? Because, according to Met-Art the photographers are required have 2257's on the models, just like Mayhem.
Glenn Hall - Fine Art wrote:
he just did numnuts...can't you read? Brave words...from 5000miles away.
Photographer
Hector Fernandez
Posts: 1152
Mexico City, Distrito Federal, Mexico
The Galitsin case was very famous in the photo world in Russia. The guy was charged, he spent time in jail, even his wife spent some time in jail, his pictures were depicted in met-art and other sites that catter for the high-end porn industry. You can check that even in the wikipedia.
a)The LAW talked and the people of Volgograd talked. The only problem was that the Russian Law allowed those snails to scape with the "art" horseshit argument that was the trial argument not the fact that they took photos of 16 y.o. girls in pornographic situations. If they are free is because a technicality not because they weren't guilty of child porn.
b)Met-art was the primary buyer of Galitsin images for more than 10 years. If you want me to belive they didn't knew a thing you are in total denial. I have worked as a professional photographer for many years and my long term clients know everything about me and the way I do business, the model agency I use, the assitants I hire, my equipment list and the kind of toilet paper I buy for the studio. Those f***rs knew.
Photographer
Dan Howell
Posts: 3570
Kerhonkson, New York, US
Glenn Hall - Fine Art wrote:
he just did numnuts...can't you read? apparently you can't read a 2257 declaration...
Photographer
Hector Fernandez
Posts: 1152
Mexico City, Distrito Federal, Mexico
Dan Howell wrote:
apparently you can't read a 2257 declaration... Apparently you don't know that Most Erotic Teens activities are prior of the enforcement of the 2257 declaration. MET-ART made tons of money with child porn and I am not totally convinced they stoped since they can forge documents.
Photographer
ArtisticGlamour
Posts: 3846
Phoenix, Arizona, US
Hector Fernandez wrote:
Your post... Hector thank you for the honest information and opinion. (I'll read the wikipedia on it). And, I do understand your cynicism.
But, I have to think the photographer (Galitsin?) was the one responsible...just as if a photographer faked documents here for Mayhem 18+. And that is the problem with the whole 2257 issue, it's really more of a burden on honest photographers...and likely does little to actually prevent just such criminal activities. Criminals will just fake the damn documents....they don't care.
Just like with Mayhem POTD 18+ here, I have to assume that 18+ means 18+...until proven otherwise. And the "producer" of the image carries the burden of accurate documentation, correct? But, after this thread I seriously have to wonder if an 18+ POTD is worth the possible grief. Learning a lot on this thread. I think I'll just shoot with 40+ models!
Like from the "Miller test" for "obscenity"...(per 2257 link):
"the average person, applying contemporary adult community standards"... Who defines which "community" and who is "average"...sheeze. That's some pretty subjective law. Should I assume that the Mayhem Guidelines for 18+ POTD will keep me "legal"? Because many images are pretty similar to the met-art style. Or, should I only shoot 18+ with a lawyer and a tape measure? 
Photographer
Jerry Nemeth
Posts: 33355
Dearborn, Michigan, US
Hector Fernandez wrote:
Apparently you don't know that Most Erotic Teens activities are prior of the enforcement of the 2257 declaration. MET-ART made tons of money with child porn and I am not totally convinced they stoped since they can forge documents. I know several Met Art models that are over 18.
Photographer
CZ Digital
Posts: 81
Waco, Texas, US
I live in the ground zero of Met-Art models. The ones I know personally are all early to mid 20's
What most people don't realize about Central / Eastern European women is how well they age - my Czech girfriend was a professional ballet dancer for 18 years and is now 27 years old. She still gets ID'd buying cigarettes a lot of times. Her 32 year old sister (also a ballet dancer) looks to be my g/f's younger sister by a good amount.
Girls in this immediate region hit the genetic jackpot so-to-speak, take care of themselves, and look much younger than their actual age....and LOTS of them shoot for Met-Art, Hegre, Errotica, Femjoy, etc. Met-Art may have had some young ones slip through years back but I highly doubt they would risk their hugely successful business by knowingly accepting shoots of underaged models - especially when you have access to such a high volume (virtually bottomless pool) of legal pictoral-worthy models.
Photographer
nyk fury
Posts: 2976
Port Townsend, Washington, US
CZ Digital wrote:
I live in the ground zero of Met-Art models. funny, a friend [male model] posted a shot of a female friend of his [czech model] on FB this morning and i practically ruptured my spleen. seriously. and i have seen a lot of images over the years. joked with him that we should go there...
Photographer
CZ Digital
Posts: 81
Waco, Texas, US
nyk fury wrote:
funny, a friend [male model] posted a shot of a female friend of his [czech model] on FB this morning and i practically ruptured my spleen. seriously. and i have seen a lot of images over the years. joked with him that we should go there... Stand on a busy street and throw a rock. Chances are overwhelming that you'll hit at least one model on every toss. If you can skip a rock you'll likely hit a few...lol. I'm just beginning shooting models (first real shoot scheduled in a few weeks), so I have nothing to show for the local beauty in my profile except a lot of pictures of my current g/f (the ballet dancer mentioned in my previous post), and an ex from Slovakia.
Trust me, they are STUNNING. Part of their beauty is how down-to-earth they are - they see themselves as merely average or "nothing special". They don't realize that "average" here puts you squarely in supermodel territory elsewhere in the world.
|
