Check out Asuka at met-art.com. The photographer is Roy Stuart, who is famous for his astute blending of glamour photography and pornography.
(Visited 47 times, 1 visits today)
Asuka @ met-art.com by Roy Stuart
Check out Asuka at met-art.com. The photographer is Roy Stuart, who is famous for his astute blending of glamour photography and pornography.
This is not the typical Met-Art model, IMO. Perhaps it is partly the photography, but she looks raw, compared to most Met-Art girls, and she actually is sporting more than two pubic hairs.
Her legs certainly aren’t toned or shapely. She is more scrawny than fit, IMO. And, her breasts are small (although you know I don’t mind that, at all).
With that said, I think she is really sexy. The whole is definitely more than the sum of the parts, in this case. I have a feeling this girl is really something, in person, for some reason.
Oh, BTW, I really like her odd smile.
Dean, you pretty much said everything that I was incapable of putting into my own words. Well done.
Yes, this girl is one of the few metart girls that I’ve found worth looking at. My only complaint is that the pics are a little fuzzy due to low lighting, haha.
Don’t get me wrong, jd, I like Met-Art girls quite a bit. But, their style is very soft and smooth…”raw” is the furthest thing from their normal/typical style.
I wouldn’t be surprised if they deliberately made the pics grainy for what passes as “artistic” effect these days. I think the sexiness in these shots comes from the impression that this is the kind of girl you might pick up off the street and take into a darkened room (like the one in the photos) and, well, you know the rest! This is basically porn with “artry” lighting and effects.
Well, Doc, you pretty much nailed what the Wiki calls his “style”:
“One of the characteristics of the photographs of Roy Stuart is an astute blending of glamour photography and pornography…”
I like her lips.
Im not complaining about the grain or lighting, it’s fine. I’m complaining that the shots were shot at a shutter speed that is just too slow for the photographer to handle. =D
and by the way, one could say what you guys said about Roy about many of the metart photographers (erro being my personal fav).
I have said before that I think much of MetArt’s material is far more porn than “art”. I mean, just look at the first part of their name: “most erotic teens”. Why should teens be any more suitable for art photography than more mature women? The answer, of course, is that they aren’t – it’s just that the porn market loves teens (even if in name only).
Yes, but as far as porn goes, met-art has the most tasteful and classy stuff of any english site i’ve seen. (graphis is far better!)
I think they’re a bit of a mixed bag – a lot of their stuff is very tasteful and classy, but some of it is just flat out porn (especially the videos).
I like everything about these. Great photos. And she has the most enticing smile, delightfully mussed hair, and a really nice body. I love it when there are more than enough hairs to confirm she’s a grown woman not a little girl.
Since we are on the topic, what do you think of Hegre’s stuff, Doc?
I think Hegre’s mostly pornographic as well, especially his more recent stuff. Certainly, he is a capable photographer with an “arty” edge, but his stuff is getting more and more just straight out explicit, and as he has to churn so much stuff out, it has become more samey and less interesting. I should point out that none of this is the fault of Hegre or MetArt’s photographers – they’re just giving the internet market what it wants. Still, their claims to be art and not porn often make me cringe – I wish they’d just be honest about what it really is.
Looks like a photo shoot for American Apparel.
She’d look cuter with some geeky glasses.
I like her more every time I see her. She’s just so normal and that’s hot.
chocopie, you hit the nail right on the head, I think. American Apparel is the perfect analogy for this this set.
And, Doc, I almost completely agree with you. Met-Art and Hegre’s stuff IS, often, pornography (although, what I consider artsy, high quality pornography). I’m not so sure we agree that “pornography” is bad, though.
Also, where I might differ from you is, I DO blame (if you want to call it that) the photographer. An artist can stay true to their art, or can decide to create what will make them more $$.
I am a relentless critic of musicians who decide to create for the lure of filthy lucre, so I think I should apply those same standards to other artists.
While I have no inherent problem with what some call “pornography”, I have a knee-jerk aversion to pandering for the sake of commercial appeal.
I must agree that these sites have evolved to be far more “pornographic” than their original roots. Certainly they are a much higher quality of pornography than most of what is available. But, they seemed to have “regressed” to appeal to the level that spends the most $$ on internet “erotic art”
Damn you, Doc. Stop making me think!
It’s my job to make people think. 😉 I do have to clarify that I have absolutely nothing against porn though – I just object to people calling porn “art”. We’ve stayed clear of porn in my photography for Sachiko’s site, and I’m sure we’ve lost a lot of potential memberships as a result. However, as Sachiko does a wide range of things, this is most appropriate for her. If we were entirely dependent on memberships though, we’d have to do porn simply to survive.
Oh yes, I detest the commercialisation of the music industry more than anyone, but I still don’t blame the artists. In the early 70s, artists like Yes and Jethro Tull could release complex songs that took up entire albums (or at least album sides) and sell millions, because the record industry got behind them. There’s no way any record company would even consider selling this kind of thing today. They just seek out the next gangsta rapper or Britney Spears – and then they wonder why so few people think their crap is worth paying for any more!
i think in order to be an american apparel ad, the background has to be white, the clothes bright, and the contrast high. additionally the girl either needs to ooze apathy from her very pores or look like a coked-out hooker. thankfully none of this is the case here
What a lovely set of pictures! I don’t see them as pornography as it is not a gynecologist type of meat layout, but I don’t see it as art either as it is clearly intended to arouse. I think its quality is that it looks real! The girl looks real, not silliconesque and shaved like these California import model bimbos, the pictures look intimate like a a loving boyfriend would take (and not share). And the girl is inviting and charming, no princess attitude.
Really a good set…
I really like Met-Art concept and everything, I like think she is sort of scary thin looking in some of those pics though. =~.~=;
Got this in my mailbox last week. Guess I’m the only one absolutely turned off by this chick. Looks like a speed freak. A better post would have been Kahori A by Yousoudo that was released the same week.
Actually BlueSkies, I can see what you mean, but once again I think it’s more the style of the photography than anything else. Kahori certainly looks more healthy and wholesome, but I have to say that the photography is very amateurish – with all the gratuitous pussy close-ups and awkward posing (not to mention the very boring background), this photo shoot is anything but art. At least Roy Stuart’s photography does have an “arty edge”.
ASUKA A
Age: 28
Eyecolor: BROWN
Haircolor: BLACK
Height: 170 cm
Weight: 52 kg
Breast Size: Medium
Measurements: 88/60/89
Country: Japan
Ethnicity: Asian
85 pics 30 mb
Asuka’s photo at the top is very natural with the lighting/shadows almost pointing to the small imperfections in the body. The pose is so natural the facial expression transmits a sense of ease.
The work itself seems a bit hurried at times and does lack a careful thought process. However, I did find a number of the pics more interesting when I used the girls facial expressions as the basis to judge the shot. The bruises on her thigh, shadows emphasizing uneven skin color underscoring the ribs. With some editing this would be a much better collection. Overall, the approach has merit, no air brushing, silicone or make up of any kind. Less is less here, but also refreshing.