On Playboy's decision to get rid of nudity

[strannik01]

It isn't every week that a magazine makes international news simply because it changed editorial direction. But then, Playboy was never just any magazine.

There were magazines with nude women before - but they were low-brow and way, way underground. Hugh Hefner wanted Playboy to be classy. Boundary pushing, libertine in sensibility, but classy. It

Comments

Interesting Links for 16-10-2015

[livejournal]

User andrewducker referenced to your post from Interesting Links for 16-10-2015 saying: [...] ) On Playboy's decision to get rid of nudity [...]

[againstathorn]

It was an interesting decision, perhaps wise given today's environment.

That said, from a technical standpoint Playboy photos have always been impressive. They even qualify as art, as far as I'm concerned, and a nude from the 70s or 80s was quite beautiful, tasteful and overall well executed. It's kind of sad that they won't be producing them anymore, what with all the horrible content out there these days.

[strannik01]

I would agree about the artistic quality of the nude photoshoots, especially many celebrity shoots. Even in recent years... while I'm not keen on some airbrushing and photoshoppery, when Playboy tries, the results are impressive. Lisa Rinna's "Mrs. Robinson" themed photo shoot immediately comes to mind. And say who one will about Lindsay Lohan's decision to pose for Playboy, the end results looked good.

I don't think the skill involved will go to waste - it will just be used for more PG-13 purposes. But there is something to be said for losing a showcase of good nude photography.