Art in PLAYBOY

[Peggy Wilkins]

I have some comments to begin our discussion of art in PLAYBOY.

Right from the start in the 1950s, art has been an important component
of PLAYBOY.  From small drawings to significant large scale works in
various media -- collages, sculpture, paintings, and more -- art and
illustration have contributed significantly to the visual impact of
each issue of PLAYBOY.  A few artists have come to be strongly
associated with PLAYBOY and have helped give a unique look and brand
identity to the magazine: most significantly LeRoy Neiman, who has
contributed works large and small for decades and whose very
distinctive Femlin has appeared in every issue since August 1955; the
immortal Vargas, and more recently Olivia; Patrick Nagel; and many
more.

In recent issues there has been a shift away from art, with most
features illustrated with photographs instead.  For example, in the
current (August) issue, there is only one major artwork, illustrating
that issue's fiction.  Other art in this issue is limited to very
small and minor reproductions, such as in Raw Data, Movies, Advisor,
Forum, Party Jokes (the traditional Neiman Femlin), and Potpourri.

I would now like to ask:

 - Is this shift away from art and toward photography significant?
   How and why?  (In other words, help to clearly define this issue.)

 - What do you think of this shift?  Do you perceive it as
   beneficial, detrimental, neutral?

For my part, I have no problem with photography and I think it can add
very positive content to the magazine.  (Photography is, of course, an
art itself.)  However, the corresponding move away from the presence
of significant art does change the overall visual impact of the
magazine.  How does it change it?  On the positive side, it may make
the magazine seem more accessible to more people; this speaks for
additional photographs.  On the negative side, I think PLAYBOY is too
easily letting go of an important component of its visual impact --
one that contributes signifcantly to brand identity.  (Of course this
reaises the question of if this is a desirable brand identity...)  I
know as a longtime reader that I have been pulled in and struck by
particular illustrations, and they have been etched into my mind
permanently: they have become an integral part of my memory of the
magazine.  I have missed the presence of striking art as an opening to
major features.  It is a different entry in to the mind of the reader,
from a potentially more abstract and creative point of view.

Can art and photography work together?  For instance, if a major
artwork opens a feature, does it make sense to then have photographs
on subsequent pages, or is this too much of a dissonant approach to
feature illustration?  If it is too dissonant an approach, perhaps
there could be a deliberate decision made on a per feature basis, of
whether to use art or photography.

I also have to wonder what the editors think of this topic -- is the
move toward photography also a deliberate move away from art?  And
what is their reasoning here?

If it is financially viable, I hope PLAYBOY can continue to use top
rate art, even as they are adding photography.

Peggy Wilkins
mozart@lib.uchicago.edu