>>1245670meh i mean besides the boners a lot of these photos are objectively well done and would be right at home in a fashion editorial ad, especially photos like
>>1245064i've seen a lot more shitty photos by pervy photographers (RE: modelmayhem) who are interested in taking advantage of wannabe models above all else. at least these are OK and vibe with fashion photo aesthetic, which FYI isn't necessarily trying to be fine art photo aka "ART"
anyway this is a porn board why am i talking about any of this lol. if i want to hear misinformed lunkheads talk about "what true art is" i can just get on reddit
