Change is bad!

[Brian Sorgatz]

Peggy Wilkins wrote:
> As I have said before, it is the vision of what Playboy is that
> should drive its content.  Hence, as far as I'm concerned, the look
> and content of the magazine is free to change, as long as it is the
> expression of the good vision that is behind it as the prevalent
> force. . . . I firmly believe that if they stick to the Playboy
> vision, changing the specific content shouldn't matter that much.

I don't agree. The specific, arbitrary forms of our material
surroundings and artefacts are not merely expressions of ideas. They
have meaning and value unto themselves. Airy, intellectualized,
disembodied vision will not suffice. It's healthy for us to be
grounded by some degree of stability in what our five senses take
in. Or so it seems to me.

I wrote:
> I was disappointed to see the main text of some articles in the
> March 2003 issue printed in a new font. My eyes adore the font that
> Playboy has used since the 1950s. 

Peggy replied:
> Could you give examples of which articles you are referring to?

See the following pages in the March issue: 71 through 74, 93, 127
through 128.

I would love to know what the other participants think of the issues
Peggy and I have discussed over the past few days.

Brian Sorgatz