Terry Richardson’s Work is Degrading to Women

[michyed]

From nymag - March 12th, 2010

Terry Richardson shoots everything from Jimmy Choo ads to Pirelli calendars to Harper's Bazaar editorials. He also shot the lady-orgy spread for the fall issue of Purple in which Abbey Lee Kershaw, Eniko Mihalik, Freja Beha, and Magdalena Frackowiak grope each other in various states of undress. Kershaw recently explained that when that kind of thing happens on a Richardson shoot, it's because models want to. But model turned filmmaker Rie Rasmussen sees it somewhat differently. She told "Page Six":

"He takes girls who are young, manipulates them to take their clothes off and takes pictures of them they will be ashamed of. They are too afraid to say no because their agency booked them on the job and are too young to stand up for themselves.
​

"His 'look' is girls who appear underage, abused, look like heroin addicts ... I don't understand how anyone works with him."
​

Rasmussen recently bumped into Richardson at a party in Paris and expressed these same sentiments.

"I told him what you do is completely degrading to women. I hope you know you only [bleep] girls because you have a camera, lots of fashion contacts and get your pictures in Vogue.
"Instead of arguing with me, Terry ran out of the bar. Then the next day, he called my agency and complained I called him names in front of clients in Paris. It was the most cowardly thing I have ever seen."
​

Maybe Richardson should do a Style.com interview for their "Future of Fashion" series like his friend Olivier Zahm. It allowed Zahm plenty of space to explain his view of women.

I love this girl, and I admire her for standing up to Terry Richardson and confronting him face to face.

 

[Jenna-maria]

she is so right. all work terry has done is disgusting. Go Rie!

 

[Ciao!Manhattan]

I don't think all of his work is disgusting. His work for Jimmy Choo, H&M, Aldo, Vogue ... is great. When he shooted Obama for Vibe it was great too.

 

[Working Girl]

^^ Obama is a man and a very powerful one. The point the model is making is that he takes girls and shoots them to look like they are on skid row. The one with Marykate comes to mind. Where she looks strung out.

I don't mind these girls taking pictures with him. But my god. Why date him.

 

[irulan]

Yes, I find Terry Richardson'd work degrading to women, too.

I just wish magazines and big brands would tell him the same. His Pirelli calendar for this year was beyond tasteless and that god-damn awful naked homping orgy with Magdalena, Eniko and Abbey still makes me sick.

 

[Les_Sucettes]

I love his work. And i think that Purple ed was amazing. Those are big models, people that do have a choice, so not really worried about it. And that Obama pic is the best I've seen of the President.

He photographs all sorts of people, he's the most democratic of photographers, and he doesn't take himself too seriously. As a women I do not feel at all offended by his pics, there is always a playful side to them that i find refreshing, he doesn't turn women into ethereal perfect beings, his women are made of flesh and bones and yes imperfect.

In Mary Kate's pic she looks like Mary Kate, her style is looking like some sort of junky most of the time, why should he made her look more appealing and gloss over the reality? She's exactly like that and made an adult career out of it.

 

[LUXXX]

I like some of his work, but I do respect her for speaking up about an opinion that many people seem to have.

 

[Fabulyss]

I like some of his work, but I do respect her for speaking up about an opinion that many people seem to have.

On the contrary, I think it is more popular to be a fan of his work and if you're not, than you're just 'too serious' and 'don't get it'.

Personally, I think he clearly has a lot of clout in the industry and his aesthetic has influenced both fashion, advertising, and graphic design. I've even read an interview with him in which I began to understand where he was coming from a little bit. However, I do think he is a dirty old man and we shouldn't be naive about what happens on his shoots.

 

[Working Girl]

I love his work. And i think that Purple ed was amazing. Those are big models, people that do have a choice, so not really worried about it. And that Obama pic is the best I've seen of the President.

He photographs all sorts of people, he's the most democratic of photographers, and he doesn't take himself too seriously. As a women I do not feel at all offended by his pics, there is always a playful side to them that i find refreshing, he doesn't turn women into ethereal perfect beings, his women are made of flesh and bones and yes imperfect.

In Mary Kate's pic she looks like Mary Kate, her style is looking like some sort of junky most of the time, why should he made her look more appealing and gloss over the reality? She's exactly like that and made an adult career out of it.

http://i34.tinypic.com/n47py.jpg Look at this picture of Marykate. I have never seen her like this before. I am not a follower of her. But come on. She looks like she is strung out, got beat up and scared. Look at her knees, their purple. Sorry but, Marykate doesn't look like that to me nor has she ever been.

Just do a quick google search. And you see actor like Jake Gyllenhaal,Robert Downey Jr , James Franco, Christan Bale looking cool, macho surrounded my women. But the women look nothing like they are in control and powerful.

I don't like his work. He seems like an amateur. Like any frat boy with a camera can do these pictures.

 

[TianSoFine]

I think his work is disgusting, messy, boring, repetitive, and just not aesthetically pleasing at all.

 

[model_mom]

much more about this topic here....http://forums.thefashionspot.com/f63/model-behavior-read-post-1-before-posting-2-a-80857-118.html page 118=119

 

[Scott]

i find it rather ironic she's calling terry richardson out on his work yet she was pretty much thrusted into the limelight by and remained so loyal to tom ford whilst at gucci who made women look rather a certain 'standard' if you know what i mean. and she played it to a 't'. it's a little hypocritical.

i'm not the biggest fan of terry richardson either but at least he's honest in what he does as a photog. it's sex...it's raw...and he's never made any qualms about that.

 

[model_mom]

$15,000 a day is a powerful incentive to a 16 year old who was making minimum wage back home. Then you have your agency telling you just go along with his "artistic talent" and then you're told on the second day of a 5 day shoot..."Don't come back tomorrow if you're not willing to take your clothes off." There could be any number of models who have this same story to tell and the same decision to make. Some have parents along to make the decision for them ....but a lot of them are on their own and supporting themselves and the money can make a difference between having a place to live and food to eat or living on the street. Agents should call a stop to this...but with 20% of that kind of cash off numerous models,it's not going to happen.

True story and I'm sure if others were willing to speak out like Rie ....one of many.

 

[michyed]

i find it rather ironic she's calling terry richardson out on his work yet she was pretty much thrusted into the limelight by and remained so loyal to tom ford whilst at gucci who made women look rather a certain 'standard' if you know what i mean. and she played it to a 't'. it's a little hypocritical.

But the huge difference is, she's 32. Those girls are sometimes as young as 16? Possibly even 15?

 

[irulan]

Yes, it's sex, it's raw, that's nothing too bad.

Yet very many of his pictures are demeaning to women. Google him and look at the pictures that come up. Women with milk or ice cream dripping from their mouths - kind of obvious. Fully dressed guys with naked women ironing next to them or dry-homping them. Various blow-job pictures. Women wearing S&M masks, naked again. The most disgusting ad for men's perfume I've ever seen. A girl licking a **** (as in the animal). Terry himself in various states of undress.

It is beyond me how this man gets published in between articles about women in leading positions and luxury goods. Just because the models are fine with it doesn't mean that the message these pictures convey is any less insulting. And just because he shoots editorials with girls dressed from time to time doesn't mean he's a feminist who depicts strong women who are in control. One pic of a nude girl on her knees is quite enough to diminish all of his other, commercial work in my book.

He's cheap and revolting.

 

[michyed]

On the contrary, I think it is more popular to be a fan of his work and if you're not, than you're just 'too serious' and 'don't get it'.

Personally, I think he clearly has a lot of clout in the industry and his aesthetic has influenced both fashion, advertising, and graphic design. I've even read an interview with him in which I began to understand where he was coming from a little bit. However, I do think he is a dirty old man and we shouldn't be naive about what happens on his shoots.

I couldn't agree more.

(And on a side note... Come on, his photography skills are so terribly mediocre. Any hipster with a beginner's 350D, external flash and a pretty lady willing to pose nude could take the same shots... His shoots belong in Zoo Today or Nuts... Not Vogue.)

 

[sarehak]

Isn't there a picture floating around of Richardson with his penis out & the nude female model under him holding it while he ejaculated on her? Sorry for the revolting details, but that photograph can not be deemed "artistic" even if she is 18+.

& I'd rather be of the minority & unpopular than be popular & support his work.

 

[Karen0193]

I find some of Terry's job very good, others disgusting. He's is very repetitive too, I think that Rie is rather right and I'm glad that someone speak up about this, because I believe that many people think this, but arent brave enough to speak about a subject like this.

 

[Scott]

well if one is going to call him out on that how about making it a case for the entire industry then? it seems fruitless to make him responsible for the nature of the objectification of young girls when young girls have been objectified in this industry for ages. as much as i would love to say he's a prime example,he's merely an aspect of an entire machine that's happened for a long time. and i speak specifically on the work...now,whether the issue is that he pushes himself onto young girls that's really an issue for their agencies and the authorities. where is their responsibility in all that?

 

[Karen0193]

Isn't there a picture floating around of Richardson with his penis out & the nude female model under him holding it while he ejaculated on her? Sorry for the revolting details, but that photograph can not be deemed "artistic" even if she is 18+.

& I'd rather be of the minority & unpopular than be popular & support his work.

that's disgusting.