scattered shots

Dan Stiffler calendar-girls@mindspring.com
Tue, 15 Jul 2003 15:11:37 -0400


Just some quick observations on matters I have seen in this forum over the
last week or so:

1).  Art in PLAYBOY: The first awards that PLAYBOY won when it began
publication were for art and art design.  At first these were Chicago
awards, later New York awards, and then national awards.  The editors
trumpeted these awards very early in the Playbill because the awards
gave legitimacy to a magazine that could have all-too-easily been
dismissed as a skin rag.  Later, when PLAYBOY's reputation became
established, top artists were commissioned to do work for illustrating
feature articles and fiction.  Never-before-published Picassos
appeared in January 1957 issue to illustrate a story by Ray Bradbury.

As I remember (and I am sure that someone will correct me if I am wrong),
one of the Kaminsky doctrines is that young men today are more engaged with
photographs than with art.  Thus, the thinking is that PLAYBOY needs more
photos and less art.  So I don't think we are going to get the balance that
Peggy and Donna mention.  (As a side note, I really like the art with the
fiction in the August issue).

The doctrine is flawed.  Graphic novels are a big item among the young today
(both men and women), even regular comics (consider the number of
blockbuster movies based on graphic art).  Also, most video games--even
though they may appear "lifelike" and "video quality"--are nothing more than
artistic/computer renderings.  And consider the wonderful world of
animation: it's all art (as opposed to photographs).  As someone who has
been working with the 18-23 year-old set for twenty-five years, I can attest
that many young people think of themselves as artists: painters, sculptors,
printmakers, etc.

The photograph has not killed art.  It has forced art to expand its own
boundaries, but that is a good thing (just ask those who live off the estate
of Jackson Pollock!).  It may be that Maxim made its way with mostly
photographs and very little art.  But I thought Kaminsky said he didn't come
to PLAYBOY in order to Maximize it.  As has been mentioned in a number of
venues, PLAYBOY should be the magazine to which the Maxim reader graduates.
If it is just the same (except for the nudity), I don't see what the big
deal is about graduating.

2.  The recent review in the Chicago Tribune:  I think it is proper to
criticize the author for not providing some suggestions.  An argument loses
its force if no solutions are offered.  However, what concerns me is
the persistent notion that PLAYBOY has become irrelevant.  We saw this
assessment earlier in an article in the Orange County newspaper; Steve
Migala posted (on the PML) a recent top 50 magazines that had appeared in
the Chicago Tribune and PLAYBOY was listed as having "gone bad" (Esquire was
rated #10); now this review by McKean on the new Kaminsky PLAYBOY.  And
there have been other signs of dismissal in the mass press.

Donna mentions some articles that have appeared in trade magazines and
elsewhere.  Any chance that this forum, or at least Peggy, can get access to
those?

I have offered my solutions to the problems that PLAYBOY faces, and I stand
by them.  No need to rehearse them here.  But I cannot be sanguine about the
seemingly general perception that PLAYBOY has "gone bad."  Unfortunately, it
is a perception that--with a few important exceptions--I happen to share.

3.  The PLAYBOY philosophy:  I very much enjoyed reading Brian's piece on a
second-wave philosophy and I endorse the concept unequivocally.  One of my
ten suggestions was for PLAYBOY to once again stand for something.  I think
Brian is on to something important here.  However, the original philosophy
grew out of the magazine's defensive posture and it expanded beyond all
expectations when the first installments created a torrent of correspondence
from readers (this is how the Forum was born).  Given that Hef thinks the
"victory is won," does he see the magazine in a defensive position anymore?
If not, this second-wave philosophy will need to be generated in some other
way and by some other writer (I don't see Kaminsky doing this).

The irony is that the magazine is in a fight for its life.  It's just not
fighting the old foes.  I happen to think it is fighting itself.

4.  Celebrity:  As most of you know, I think that PLAYBOY has a dangerous
addiction to celebrity, one that could very well prove fatal.  I had to
cheer when I read Steve's "'undressing celebrities' is a major fantasy among
pre-pubescent children."  Given the postings generated on the PML any time
someone starts a "who would you like to see naked?" thread, this is a
condition that hangs on well past puberty for some.  However, by all
accounts it is a silly preoccupation.  Unfortunately, it seems to be the
preoccupation of PLAYBOY today (and, I must add, in recent years).

While I agreed with much of what Steve wrote in his well-reasoned post, we
part ways somewhat on the notion of an "intended" audience for PLAYBOY.  He
speaks about the many young men who frequent web sites in search of nudity
and he bases some of his recommendations on that group.

I happen to think that there is another group that PLAYBOY should consider.
I know it is old-fashioned to say this, but PLAYBOY should still be for the
young man (and the older man too) who aspires to a better life, a more
sophisticated and urbane life.  As I mentioned above, I have worked with
young people for twenty-five years, and I am convinced that--bad press
notwithstanding--many young people today have that aspiration.

For this reason, I have always thought of PLAYBOY as a niche magazine.
Donna dismissed Esquire, GQ, and Details as "niche" magazines.  Well, what's
wrong with that?  Even though PLAYBOY once had astonishing circulation
figures, it was no less a niche magazine.  Indeed, in the early years, when
letters would roll in complaining about this or that, the editors were
confident in their assertion that PLAYBOY was not for everyone.

One of the problems I have with the current obsessive outreach to the 18-35
year-old demographic is that the approach seems monolithic: as if all 18-35
year-olds are the same (addicted to reality shows, video games, and
one-paragraph articles).  PLAYBOY needs to rediscover its niche.

I will finish by relating a story I heard at the last Chicago Glamourcon.
Wil told the story at Sunday dinner and has given me permission to pass it
on.  As is his custom, Wil had gone out to dinner on Saturday with a bevy of
playmates, one of whom was Janet Lupo.  As it happened, they were returning
to a restaurant that they had visited at a previous Chicago Glamourcon.
Apparently their first visit had impressed one of the young men working the
tables because, when they returned, he presented Janet Lupo with her
centerfold collector's card for an autograph.  He had been carrying it is
his wallet with the hope in his heart that Janet Lupo would once again come
into his restaurant.

This is a young man with dreams, a young man willing to go the extra step to
make his dreams come true.  The sort of man who...

regards,

Dan Stiffler