I was fascinated by the implied raciness of the pictures, given that at best all you could see was a hint of curves. The poses themselves were provocative as well, and I wanted to spark a discussion of it.
One thing that should have occurred to me but didn’t was how the pictures themselves were made. Was a model exposed to X-rays? How much were the images enhanced? Were they real at all?
Well, now I know. An article at Radiology Daily gives the lowdown: no models were irradiated in the making of the calendar. The pictures were all CGI, though based on models in Playboy.
The interesting thing about the article, though, is that they do discuss the implied raciness, just as I did:
"Obviously, we didn?t want to expose models to dangerous radiation," [calendar art director] Schlichte said told Financial Times Deutschland. So the artists consulted a few issues of Playboy to determine "what poses look erotic if you?re not actually seeing anything," she said. Then they had a computer generate those poses in skeletal form.
As for "not actually seeing anything," that?s not quite accurate. Schlichte noted, "Anyone taking a close look at Miss April can see two silicon bags floating in front of her thorax."
Ha! I was thinking of using April in my original article, but decided the more obvious breasts (and the more suggestive pose, truth be told) made it a bit too adult for the blog. I chose February, where they’re a bit less ostentatious.
All in all, I think this was an interesting idea, and it certainly did get the conversation going in the comments!
Tip o’ the lead fedora to Babloggee Eric B.
Full story at http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/BadAstronomyBlog/~3/kVUkDD5y-FU/
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment