This gallery contains 106 images @ 22 megapixels. Sign up now to see them all!


pic 64 closeup and out of focus?


I love Malena Morgan. She makes you feel as if she is posing for you. l have seen lots of her videos and I have never seen her do rough sex with a man. Good for you Malena! There are a lot of stars who do rough sex after going solo for a while and in no time at all their pussy are damaged which really put me off.

Her tattoos, while there, are unobtrusive enough and she is so lovely, they simply don't distract from her beauty. Nothing could.

tattoos or not, Malena is always a super cute and I think that it is much worse when a girl, lately the younger ones too, " disfigured " their bodies with chemical stuffs....than an innocuous tattoo that it can be removed anytime by laser ...

Just look Malena and as far i am concerned her tattoos do not matter......

Malena is the most beautiful and the sexiest of all models.....plan to start a fan page for her......every bit of her oozes perfection of gorgeous beauty

IMHO, this is Malena's best set in a LONG time -- and I'm including her sets on SexArt and other sites.
Something about this set got her more engaged and animated and less the jaded pornstar she seems to have felt like for awhile.
Whatever it was, I hope she continues tapping into it, because she is incredibly beautiful and appealing, when her heart's in it.

I saw crappy ink and thought "this gal must be American" then I realized who I was looking at and where she's from. It's a bummer when the ink is so bad, just typical "I'm an induhvidual, you can tell by my ink". Yes you are unique, just like everyone else.

Otherwise pretty girl, just sorta typical really, nothing interesting, pretty much know everything I need to know about her from the ghetto ink.

Any chance we can see Malena over at SexArt again?

Malina is very beautiful. but her bored porn star expression is all she gives us until her gym poses at the very end

The cause of the blurred/out of focus images is not in the taking but in the processing.

Most photographers use Photoshop or similar packages. The aim is to get beautifully smooth, blemish free skin. Just compare any set to that of the same model in a video and you can see the difference.

The problem with this lies in that for speed they batch process all images to the same pre-sets. A process that takes a set like this of about 100 images a few minutes. To do each one individually would take about 2-3 hours per image.

In quality terms it’s the equivalent of taking a roll of film to a quick processing lab and getting a set of images back in an hour or taking the film and getting each one hand printed. You would get a far higher quality from the latter but the cost would be 20-30 times higher.

Unfortunately, in the world we live in, it’s quantity rather than quality that that counts.

We could carry on this futile discussion about tattoos for the rest of our lives, and it probably would only continue to shed light on our own personal opinions -- which mostly seem to be male viewpoints.

Is there a WOMAN out there that would be willing to tell us why she has a tattoo??

I would even be willing to hear from a woman that THINKS she MIGHT want to get one.

The enlightenment would be most appreciated --

The most common answers I hear from women as to "why they got tats" is generally along the lines of "because it's cool" and "all my friends have them". I think in most cases they do it because of social pressure rather than some "personal thing"...especially when the tat is some non-unique tribal arm band / tramp stamp, insect, or flower that everyone else has.

No takers, huh?

Malena...beautiful as ever. Nice set, if a bit unimaginative. Love her tats! Love her 'whole', body and soul! Love her passion for the work! Loved you on Twistys Malena, and glad you're here!! XOXO ;o)

Malena is amazing, no doubt, but the tats could go....why would a beautiful woman want to ink up a beautiful body is beyond me...

You're right...it's beyond you.

I love the closeups of her armpits and speaking for myself I think her tattoos are also arousing. I don't like women covered head to foot in tattoos as they are in tattoo magazines but Marlena's tattoos are just right for me.

Met Art subscribers should start insisting on better photography; these girls are simply too beautiful for some of the less than State of the Art photos that are submitted and accepted. Catherine's photography should be the minimal standard.

Hotte I agree. I have bean moaning about poor photography on many recent sets on this site for quite a while now. However many subscribers reply by saying that as ART appears in the site name this somehow means that subscibers must be happy and willing to put up with any old rubbish photo-shoot (in the name of ART) which would not been acceptable on other sites, even those sites promoted by this site. The more the members of this site keep silent on this matter and evidently seem content in looking at tat then the more third-rate rubbish (not of a standard higher enough to be included on other sites) will be dished out on them.

Yo, tintin --
I agree. This is supposed to be THE #1 SITE for fine photography, where beauty meets fine art. Blurry and dark somehow doesn't seem to go with that slogan

What a crock a shit! The membership has hardly remained 'silent' on this issue! People bitch ALL the time about the quality of the photos here, and look how much good it's done them. "Art" is art, and "porn" is porn! Most, if not all the photographers that are 'regular contributors' here do a great job of blending the two together, with heavy focus on the "artistic" aspect of the female body. If you don't understand this and object to the "artistic license" that they take when creating these sets, I suspect you're on the wrong site. "Third rate rubbish"!? That's not only an insult to the site, but the girls that model for them. If that's what you see here, why would you continue to pay for it and spend your time complaining about it? I've done my share of bitching since I joined the site, to be sure, but after seeing some of the nonsense that people put in these comments, I've toned it way down and take what I like and leave the rest. Now I only bitch about people's ignorance and lack of respect for some very talented people. And let's not forget that the photographers are told to include 'a little something for every taste', including even the 'armpit stubble guy'. I COULD bitch about all the shots of feet, or that some of the sets focus too much on a particular part of the models anatomy (big tits for example!), but better to just enjoy what I like and not complain about what I don't like.. It makes for a much happier experience(until I make the mistake of reading the comments!).

Hey Rockhard
You haven't directed your comments at me in a long time. Let's keep it that way please. I haven't forgotten that one about "Don't comment. Just look. " Since you're just a username on a forum and as I cant ask you to step outside, and as I stated before I will go to Metart and let them know that one of us has to go.

You're an idiot.

Hear, hear, rockhard!
If you don't like what you see, unsubscribe and look for something more to your tastes.

My taste IS MetArt. I like MOST of what I see here. Never said otherwise...;o) It's moronic comments that give me a rash...

Agreed -- agreed!

Why would any woman, let alone a nude model, want to have any tatoos especially where these are located? Whist a few European models have small insignificant tatoos, even they are in the minority as most do not have any at all. American models in the main seem to be much more keen in ruining their bodies with hideously grotesque unappealing tatoos (and [in general] for that matter ridiculously inflated dreadful enlarged breasts). There is no doubt whatsoever that these are the reasons why nude-art (and porn) which feature American women sells considerably less well in Europe than stuff featuring European only women. Indeed if this site only featured American women who had tatoos or enhanced breasts or both then I for one would not renew my subscription. (I can guess what response this will invoke, but I guess it has to be said otherwise American models will never know).

I don't dislike tatoos on women per se. But like any important decision, tatoos should be the result of thoughtful consideration and not an adolescent whim. I don't like seeing an attractive model with a tatoo that appears to be the result of a careless decision of youth. On the other hand, I've seen models where a good choice of tatoos enhances their sexuality.

Some women look good with tatoos. Others don't. Personally, I think tatoos tend to look best on light skinned, thin girls. A woman with an exceptionally beautiful body usually looks best without any ink at all.

While I think Malena falls into the category of "exceptionally beautiful body", I would personally find her more attractive with no tatoos. But I don't object to her having tatoos so much as I just don't like her choices.

When my daughter was a freshman in college, she wanted to get a tatoo. I didn't "forbid" it but I did make it clear that as long as I was supporting her, she couldn't get one. I told her at which time she was supporting herself, if she still wanted a tatoo, I wouldn't object. My real reason for this ploy was very simple - don't encourage an 18 year old to get some "patented" tatoo chosen off a wall display at a strip center tatoo parlor. Fashions and trends change constantly... unlike a pair of shoes that can be thrown out when they are no longer in vogue, a tatoo is not so easily discarded. Tatoos shouldn't be chosen in the same manner as a new pair of cute earrings, but instead be the result of a careful decision that makes a personal, artistic expression that goes beyond "look what I got while I was at the mall".

Oddly enough, I sometimes find tatoos on women to be very sexy when they are what most would consider to be "excessive". Too often, one or two smaller tatoos express nothing more than being a slave to fads. While a lot of you may disagree, anyone familiar with "Suicide Girls" will at least know what I'm talking about. There are several girls on that site, covered in ink, I find to be insanely attractive. And, at the same time, I think Malena would be more attractive with no tatoos at all. Weird, isn't it.

i like neither tattoos nor enhanced or modified breasts

Just for the record --

I'm with tintin. I do not favor tattoos.

Personally, I could do without the tattoos, but I accept them because it is currently a popular trend, just as removing pubic hair is with the majority of younger women (although I enjoy that trend).

In the case of Malena, its not like she has a sleeve or anything major. At least Met didn't try to airbrush them out this time, like they have in previous sets with this model. THATS what I object to, the futile attempt we have all seen here to doctor up the models' imperfections. I want to see REAL women, and real women have skin blemishes, tattoos and irritation from shaving. I'd rather see the real Malena, tattoos and all.

Well said tintin, I stopped subscribing to Playboy for that very reason, gorgeous bodies defiled by inky doodlings; no thank you. Really cannot stand the ugly things which surely are personal to the person displaying them but often of no interest to anybody else and of no artistic merit especially in a nude art site like this. MetArt please ban the grotesque things once and for all!!

Yo, rufusredneck --
I agree about PLAYBOY. I'm not into those trendy tattoos -- and I finally gave up waiting for Playmates with natural breasts. Years ago, Hefner would not allow "plastic playmates". Now it appears to be hard to find "natural" girls to pose for the magazine. They pretty much look all the same -- big and round. A buddy of mine calls them "fun bags" because they have so little shape to them.

I can't get my thumb down far enough for this one! The "real world" is just too much for some people, so they live in a fantasy world where only their views are valid. You certainly have the 'right to say what you think' here, but don't confuse your opinion with facts.

The facts are as stated. To be more precise in 2011 European nude-art and porn out sold in Europe similar stuff that was produced in America at a ratio 7 to 1 - something American models should take on board! Moreover some stockists in Europe have now stopped stocking American made stuff altogether as it sells so poorly. Evidently Europeans seem not to like ugly tatoos nor blown up breasts to the same degree as Americans seem to like them. Moreover, as most European models work depends on not mutilating their bodies (something which seems not to apply to American models), then they conform with what the paying customer wants, and thus dont disfigure their bodies with ugly tatoos nor pumped up ridiculously looking breasts either.

I'm an American, and I don't like big fake tits, or tattoos, either. I prefer natural beauty.

If this is indeed a "fact", do you believe it has everything to do with tattoos or fake tits? I seriously doubt it. "American" porn no doubt out sells "European" porn in THIS country, as would be expected. I suspect European men prefer the 'natural' look of their models, as opposed to the 'plastic' look of so many American models with all their make-up and gaudy outfits, and those 'fake tits' that are so popular with American men. But I've seen a lot of European porn and seen LOTS of tattoos on the models...especially the Czechs. Tattoos are just as popular in Europe as they are here...maybe more so, but we only get to see a fraction of them because not ALL European women are doing nude 'art' photos or porn. And we can all agree on the 'over inflated fake tits'... If anything needs to be 'banned', I vote for those!!

One thing I forgot to mention....the assertion that a tattoo qualifies as "mutilating" a body is just plain stupid!

I am in complete agreement.

So am I.

I'm not a big fan of the tats, but I could spend a good chunk of the morning, looking at Malena on all fours.

great shoes nice to see such a lovely lady on a glorious summers day

Tattoos are fine on some people. Everyone has the right, but getting tattoos next to your pussy when you are a nude model? Probably not such a good idea. Malena, you're still beautiful.

Nate...you're right! It's NOT such a good idea, unless you're a "free and independent spirit" like Malena, and not overly concerned with the opinion of others.

And speaking of the "others", here they are!! :oD Ten of them at least...lol

I am not sure if the rear was meant to be photographed half hidden which is a shame. Could have been classic shots. Focussing is soft in places.

I agree with the pics that hide the best parts, the whole body! She is so beautiful and love to see all of her. Some of the pics are soft when you see them in full view.

Gorgeous woman. I love the gymnastic poses at the end of the set. IMHO the tattoos were a bad decision. Lovely smile!

I tend too agree with Myshkin about the tattoo's i remember her 1st series with MetArt Malena had skin grafts hiding her original ones her skimpy outfit hid most of the scars.As a female member i don't mind tattoo's on women as long they are tastefull and hidden until she wishes to show them off as for the poses they are very gymnastic towards the end of the series but i love the way she slowly peels off her clothing revealing her firm perky breasts,nipples erected and spreadibg her legs wide for all to see her pussy lips,etc she does have a very seductive face and smile too ;)

Skin grafts and scars? That have now been un-done?? No, just make-up and digital editing.

But I don't understand why M-A decided to stop covering them up. She's otherwise nearly perfect.

I simply don't understand why women feel the need to get tattooed.

At least YOU admit that you "don't understand" the 'motivation'. I suspect it's the same as any "man's" motivation, which is as varied as the people that get them. "Body art" has been around for thousands of years, and it's popularity comes and goes, but the 'haters' remain the same...'ignorant and self-righteous'! So you'd have to KNOW the person to understand what THEIR motivation was and not jump to some ridiculous conclusion about their character or their judgement. Thanks for being honest. ;o)

rockhard, I agree with you. Just because a woman displays her body to me for money (and, maybe, a bit of an exhibitionistic thrill, like some nude/porn models seem to enjoy) it does not follow that she is going to agree -- or, even, care -- about my personal tastes. Sometimes these tastes coincide and I get a bit of a thrill-- hence, my subscription to MetArt.
But, just because I don't like viewing tattoos or artificially enhanced breasts in my porn (for the record, I too prefer none of either) this does not mean these models live their lives to please me, and every bit as much as I enjoy my tats, I'm sure theirs are just as meaningful to them.

Access The Full Set Of 106 Images By Joining MetArt Today!