studio36uk wrote:
For all except the lead dog the view is pretty much the same.

Studio36

Patrick Walberg wrote:
So are you saying the same thing that I am thinking? 

Hard copy publications are difficult to sell.  More magazines and newspapers have found the need to be Internet based, with many being 100% net based!  Soon the "hard copy" magazine will go the way of film, with those who don't adjust to the shrinking market going out of business.

Probably so. Kind of harks back to the time when people only bought Playboy "for the articles" Now nobody even reads any more... they only buy it for the p**sy. That's it.

Now the others tried to come into that market with even worse writing and less actual p**sy on show. Is it any wonder they they can't compete IN PRINT but in the unregulated internet they can and they can go even further than Playboy would consider going.

As for print publications in general... well newspapers [w/ circs in the hundreds of thousands daily or low millions weekly] are taking a big hit but they still have the advantage of in-depth reporting and analysis that is denied to TV news. OTOH, niche print publications seem to be holding their own. And I am talking the real specialist stuff... train spotting; aviations mags; photography pubs, where high quality printed images are much better than they can present on the internet; certain other hobby magazines.... and a lot more. But none of these is even talking about circulations in the millions - in the UK, at least, a circulation of 30 > 50 K copies monthly is a good circ for a specialist mag. and a lot are quite satisfied and on sound financial ground with that.

The dog analogy is that behind the lead dog every other dog is just looking up the a** of the one in front of them... and can never quite catch up.

Studio36

Glen Berry wrote:

Hyper-unreal?

I guess that comparison depends on the people you hang out with. 

Glen...you can be my wingman any day lol.

Michael Pandolfo wrote:
On a serious note...I'm surprised so many photographers applaud the demise. Regardless of the content, this just means one less outlet for a photographer's vision. I have no personal interest as I rarely shoot anything remotely "glamorous" but I admire the work and those who do it well. And I hate to see even the slightest bit of censorship in any genre. Aren't artists ideally more open-minded?

Well said!

Miss Shanna Banana wrote:
they're just a knock off of maxim
and guess what, maxim kicks their ass lol

Ummmmm, same company.

studio36uk wrote:
Hard copy publications are difficult to sell.  More magazines and newspapers have found the need to be Internet based, with many being 100% net based!  Soon the "hard copy" magazine will go the way of film, with those who don't adjust to the shrinking market going out of business.

Probably so. Kind of harks back to the time when people only bought Playboy "for the articles" Now nobody even reads any more... they only buy it for the p**sy. That's it.

Now the others tried to come into that market with even worse writing and less actual p**sy on show. Is it any wonder they they can't compete IN PRINT but in the unregulated internet they can and they can go even further than Playboy would consider going.

I have no idea of their circulation figures, but men's mags like Hustler, Gallery, Chic, etc. have been hardcore for years.  Pretty much anything you can see on the net is included in their pages; oral, full penetration, ejaculation, watersports, bondage, whatever.  I think they only draw the line at depictions of male/male sex.  In some states, that still violates sodomy laws.

Doug

studio36uk wrote:
Hard copy publications are difficult to sell.  More magazines and newspapers have found the need to be Internet based, with many being 100% net based!  Soon the "hard copy" magazine will go the way of film, with those who don't adjust to the shrinking market going out of business.
Probably so. Kind of harks back to the time when people only bought Playboy "for the articles" Now nobody even reads any more... they only buy it for the p**sy. That's it.

Now the others tried to come into that market with even worse writing and less actual p**sy on show. Is it any wonder they they can't compete IN PRINT but in the unregulated internet they can and they can go even further than Playboy would consider going.

I have no idea of their circulation figures, but men's mags like Hustler, Gallery, Chic, etc. have been hardcore for years.  Pretty much anything you can see on the net is included in their pages; oral, full penetration, ejaculation, watersports, bondage, whatever.  I think they only draw the line at depictions of male/male sex.  In some states, that still violates sodomy laws.

Doug

Richard Tallent wrote:
Good riddance, IMHO.

Maybe with one fewer mainstream influence, more would-be models would be inspired by fine art and fashion than by "tease" glamour.

I'm not against tasteful glamour, but I tire of the oodles of model profiles all looking for that plastic-skin-Barbie look and the association of that look with all Internet-based modeling.

Ditto

Richard Tallent wrote:
Good riddance, IMHO.

Maybe with one fewer mainstream influence, more would-be models would be inspired by fine art and fashion than by "tease" glamour.

I'm not against tasteful glamour, but I tire of the oodles of model profiles all looking for that plastic-skin-Barbie look and the association of that look with all Internet-based modeling.

Here here! and might I add "and to glamour photography/modeling in general"? As what glamour is now is so much different and more come hither than real glamour photography ever was or meant to be.

Thomas B wrote:

I agree but these forums will always be like that....I think people who close their minds to different styles are the ones who suffer. I want to learn something about every style there is...and I can appreciate it all.

Word.  It's always funny to me to see people try to over romanticize the different incarnations that glamour has under gone through out history as if these "dreamy romantic" ideals that the have about what they think "real glamour" is existed back then.  Hollywood glamour, vintage pin up, swimsuit pin up, ALL of it was DURING IT'S  TIME considered garish and low brow and nothing but "T and A".

The red velvet  nudes of Marilyn were pics that young men would hang in closets and hide under the bed.  The Christie Brinkley posters, the infamous Farrah Fawcett poster that was a staple in garages and gyms and places were men went and scratched their nuts and drank beer, are icons in photography NOW but were considered PORN when they were made.  DURING THEIR TIME all these things that are ICONS to you all NOW were frowned upon and considered the same porn/ skin/ meat show that you consider CURRENT glam.  And every generation romanticized the generation before their's glam as if IT some how was tame and tasteful while their's was the denigration into the abyss of slutdom.

And so it continues.

And photographers ten years from now will be calling the NEXT incarnation of glam porn and say that Pam Anderson was a goddess of sultriness and sex appeal and not the slut and air brain that most anti-glam people try to make her out to be.

Remember, Marilyn Monroe and Bettie Page were considered raunchy whores in their time by people JUST like ya'll.

Ransom J wrote:

Word.  It's always funny to me to see people try to over romanticize the different incarnations that glamour has under gone through out history as if these "dreamy romantic" ideals that the have about what they think "real glamour" is existed back then.  Hollywood glamour, vintage pin up, swimsuit pin up, ALL of it was DURING IT'S  TIME considered garish and low brow and nothing but "T and A".

The red velvet  nudes of Marilyn were pics that young men would hang in closets and hide under the bed.  The Christie Brinkley posters, the infamous Farrah Fawcett poster that was a staple in garages and gyms and places were men went and scratched their nuts and drank beer, are icons in photography NOW but were considered PORN when they were made.  DURING THEIR TIME all these things that are ICONS to you all NOW were frowned upon and considered the same porn/ skin/ meat show that you consider CURRENT glam.  And every generation romanticized the generation before their's glam as if IT some how was tame and tasteful while their's was the denigration into the abyss of slutdom.

And so it continues.

And photographers ten years from now will be calling the NEXT incarnation of glam porn and say that Pam Anderson was a goddess of sultriness and sex appeal and not the slut and air brain that most anti-glam people try to make her out to be.

Remember, Marilyn Monroe and Bettie Page were considered raunchy whores in their time by people JUST like ya'll.

i don't have the energy right now to disect this line by line, but a lot of your post is inaccurate bullshit. i'm curious how old you are, it doesn't sound like you have the slightest awareness of even the 70's let alone the earlier era's

Aaron_H wrote:

i don't have the energy right now to disect this line by line, but a lot of your post is inaccurate bullshit. i'm curious how old you are, it doesn't sound like you have the slightest awareness of even the 70's let alone the earlier era's

Well when you have TIME to "correct" my inaccurate bullshit do it.  Until then nothing you're saying really means a thing now does it?