I own two editions of the Pirelli Calendar Book: the first one courtesy my wife as a birthday present (the book, not the wife), the second a present to myself with a few additional years on the clock for both calendar and buyer.
You might well ask why anyone might want a Pirelli book, but if you have to ask there is no way of explaining it to you in a way you might understand.
If you have understood, are still with me, here is a link:http://www.pirellical.com/thecal/home.html
Now, the topic I raise is this: do the calendars of the last ten years or so match up to the earlier ones in both an aesthetic sense and a must-have-one too sense?
For anyone interested in the world of calendar photography, there have been few calendars that can be judged to have been so influential - seminal, even - in effect. To paraphrase David Niven who wrote the forward to the first Book: no whimsical terriers and thatched cottages... There always were pictures of īglamourīmodels on calendars - what a travesty of the meaning of the word glamour that has been - but somehow those early Pirelli years were that breath of fresh air that the business had been waiting for: glamour by fashion photographers! Eventually, even that turned out to carry the seed of its own failure (all my personal opinion, your honour) and something fairly important was lost in the process.
Looking over the books and now the website, I cannot escape the deep feeling that the photographers have been subordinated to the art director(s). Where once I believed I saw the eye of the photographer, I now feel I see the PLAN, the big pitch that was made to the client and the exchange of the free eye for the fettered, mechanical interpretation of the concept. And you know what - I donīt think it works as well any longer.
I invite you to look at the link and to compare the years. For some reason, the colours I get suck; the black/white works well enough. This is peculiar to this link - other sites pose no such colour problems on my monitor.
Have fun - Rob C