nudes
Actively avoiding realism
No big mystery here. No need for profound comment. Although, in a funny sort of way, this is almost like an artistic “Where’s Waldo?” There’s a nipple in every picture. Some are obvious, others not so much. Can you find all of them?
Click on any image below to view the set full-screen. Do it. Don’t make me cry.
[tg_masonry_gallery gallery_id=”17819″ layout=”contain” columns=”2″]
Government leaders can’t make people leave their homes to return to large group gatherings. Feeling comfortable in public is largely a matter of marketing.
We, as a society, have arrived at that point where we have to start making some choices that have the potential to be life-altering if we’re wrong. Government leaders, looking at declining tax revenues and a crumbling economy, want businesses to re-open and with that a return of large-group gatherings, such as eating indoors at restaurants, sporting events, art galleries, and more. Cities, especially, have already lost millions of dollars in tax revenue which means less money for things such as infrastructure repair and public safety. The longer businesses stay closed and groups are limited to the smallest of gatherings, the public agencies we look to for basic required services suffer. This isn’t a management issue, nor is it a political one. Reduce the purchase of goods and services and public revenue is going to slide.
The challenge is that even when places do begin to open, many of us won’t feel comfortable going back out in public at the same rate as we did before, and when we do, we’re likely to take more precautions. For me, personally, there’s not a lot of choice. My doctor made it very clear to me that I need to still stay home as much as possible, use extreme care when I do have to go out, and to limit who I’m around. That means I’m not going to be taking any new pictures of people for a while yet.
What’s true for me, however, is not necessarily true for everyone else and a lot of people don’t have a choice about whether they go back to work. While they can still take reasonable precautions, they face an increased risk factor every time they go out.
14 civic organizations, including the Indianapolis Arts Council, have put together a survey to gauge where you’re at with this whole re-opening thing. When are you likely to venture out? What precautions will you still take? This survey is very important as it will factor heavily in determining public policy for Indianapolis. Click here to participate in the survey.
The survey is open until Friday, May 29. If you live or work in the Indianapolis area, it is important that you let city leaders know how you’re feeling about the whole start up thing. We always gripe about no one listening to us. They’re listening more carefully now than perhaps ever before.
I am still convinced that, for the greater majority of people, how comfortable anyone feels going out is largely a matter of marketing. If we see pictures of people out having fun even with health restrictions such as wearing masks and staying six feet apart from each other, then we are more likely to have a positive attitude. If all we see are news stories about increases in Covid-19-related deaths, then we’re more likely to keep our happy little asses at home.
The time is ripe for trying something new, in my opinion, and one of those concepts is the ability to make art mobile. The technology has been there for quite some time now to be able to wrap images onto vehicles of pretty much any shape or size. We can share our favorite pieces of art just by driving around!
The problems, however, are many. First, those wraps aren’t cheap. Wrapping a mini-van or SUV, for example, is going to run around $5,000. Not exactly pocket change for most people. Then, you’re going to want to change the wrap every once in a while, so each time you do the expense is incurred again. Then, if you don’t produce your own art work, there’s the matter of paying license fees for the use of the image. Those can range from a few hundred to tens of thousands of dollars per use.
My problem, aside from the fact I don’t have $5k to drop on wrapping a vehicle, is that the images I would want to use are not exactly what one might call safe for work, or general public consumption. I can just imagine the accidents that might be caused by me driving down the street with an art nude on the side of my vehicle. Our society is simultaneously both horny and prudish enough for the sight of a pair of bare breasts to be considered a public safety hazard.
Still, that doesn’t stop me from imagining what such wraps might look like if they were actually placed on vehicles of different styles and sizes. Fortunately, there are plenty of bare vehicle templates available for me to use. So, of course, that’s exactly what happened. We played.
There aren’t a lot of pictures here because, let’s face it, the concept is steeped in folly and wishful thinking. This isn’t going to happen. However, given as I am to fairy tales, we developed a handful of images to share with you. So, take the survey and then enjoy the images below.
Why so large a cost, having so short a lease, does thou upon your fading mansion spend? —William Shakespeare
We can supply nudes for your viewing pleasure, but we can’t replace the mansion
Playboy Enterprises CEO Scott Flanders has apparently dedicated himself to ridding the company of everything that represents founder Hugh Hefner. Last fall, the company announced they were going to stop printing nudes in their flagship magazine. Now, they have put the iconic Playboy Mansion up for sale with one catch: You have to keep Hef.
Actually, the arrangement isn’t really all that unusual for such an estate. Hef has lived in the mansion forever, or at least it feels that way. So, the contract stipulates that Playboy’s founder be allowed to continue living in the facility until his death. My, that’s mighty nice of Mr. Flanders, isn’t it? If I were Hef, I’d have someone start testing my food for poison, ASAP. Flanders can’t seem to get rid of everything that represents the magazine’s founder fast enough, and given the current course of action, one has to think that might include the once flamboyant Hugh M. Hefner himself.
Ostensibly, Flanders is looking to streamline the company in desperate search of the profits it had when Hef was at the helm. That would seem to be a normal and practical business move. What Flanders apparently fails to realize is that with the magazine, the mansion, and the clubs, Hef created the ultimate male fantasy and it was the pursuit of that fantasy that fueled the company’s success.
Let’s be fair, Hef wasn’t necessarily the best business person in the world himself. He had to shutter the famous clubs during the 1970s when they began hemorrhaging cash. Hef didn’t understand that even exclusive private clubs have to adapt to changes in society and in failing to do so he had no choice but to kill part of the dream himself. Playboy’s had to make a lot of other difficult decisions as well, including whether to get into video (which it did early with great success) and how to handle its online presence (not so good a move). When Hef took the company private, though, it was clear the company’s better days were behind it.
Now, Flanders, the company’s first CEO outside the Hefner family, seems to be jettisoning every part of the Playboy dream possible in an attempt to scale it down to mediocrity. He has long said that he wants to focus on licensing, which would include the Playboy name as well as the rabbit head logo. Does he not realize, though, that as he destroys the brand’s reputation he reduces the licensing value as well? Mr. Flanders doesn’t seem to think that’s the case, but personally I don’t see any other logical outcome.
The question remaining is what will Flanders kill off next? Of all the company’s holdings, there are several likely targets. I think they’ll keep Playboy Golf as well as the casinos, since those are mild, boring, and manage to make a profit. Most everything else, though, from the publishing division to Playboy TV, the Spike cable network, Playboy Online, and Playboy Radio could all theoretically be sold off, with Flanders still bringing income by continuing to license the established brand to new owners. Such a move would remove costly assets while continuing a revenue stream that would likely continue for the foreseeable future.
I think what bothers me is the complete lack of loyalty Scott Flanders exhibits to everything that is physically a part of the Playboy empire. Where he sees only a brand to be licensed and manipulated, the rest of us see the icons of becoming a man; the things that helped us know what to do, where to go, how to behave, as we made the transition for adolescence to adulthood. Playboy kept us classy, teaching us to dress well, treat women like royalty, how to put on a condom, and, oh yeah, those are what breasts look like. Flanders seems willing to throw every last bit of that away, and when he gets rid of the mansion he will, effectively, be getting rid of Hef as well.
Flanders is asking for $200 million dollars for the estate, but given the liabilities and the fact that Hef may live another 20 years, as well as  the location, he’ll be doing well if he gets a third of that price. Still, if I were lying in Hef’s place right now, I’d sure be careful about who was preparing my food. Scott Flanders doesn’t seem to be much of a friend.
Watch your back, Hef.