Terry Richardson’s Work is Degrading to Women

from Jezebel article today:

Richardson has denied the allegations of misconduct. But based on these and other interviews with sources close to Richardson, including agency employees, magazine staffers, stylists, and models, a portrait of the photographer's tactics for getting young women to submit to his advances is emerging. And it is not pretty.
Said one source familiar with the environment in Richardson's downtown New York studio, where Richardson, studio manager Seth Goldfarb, and first assistant David Swanson run the show, "The way those guys talk, women are whores and sluts, whores and sluts." Richardson is smart enough to police his behavior when circumstances dictate restraint. "The truly inappropriate stuff only happens when Terry shoots in his home studio, or on location," says this insider. "When he shoots at Milk or Industria" — two large professional studios in New York — "there are too many outsiders with prying eyes."
And Richardson would never "strongly suggest" that one of the celebrities he shoots ought to get him off. "He never, never, ever acts like this in front of any celebrity, from A-list to Z-list, even the craziest, most drugged up, want-to-please Terry types." Celebrities come surrounded by handlers and friends and publicists, and celebrities have both the power and the means to seek redress should anything happen to them on set.
This reality echoes in a strange way the sentiments of Marc Jacobs, who discussed Richardson earlier this week at an event in New York. Jacobs, who has shot with Richardson several times, said he always felt free to refuse when one of his ideas for a shot was too extreme. "I've worked with Terry and Terry has asked me to do some crazy things," said the designer. "I know that those pictures will exist if I do them. But I'm a big boy and I can say no."
With models — especially young, un-agented models, like Peck, or those Richardson solicits via his website — it's a different story. "His M.O. is to suddenly get his dick out during the shoot," says an industry insider — just as Peck and the other models described. Richardson does this so frequently, this source compares it to a rehearsed drama: "It's like you're at the part in the play where that character comes out." And Richardson proceeds from nudity, to touching himself, to touching the model, to asking the model to touch him — all more on the assumption of his subject's consent than her actual, asked and obtained, permission.
All of which begs the question, who is in the business of protecting models from whatever predators exist within the industry? Theoretically, this would be the agency to which the model pays, in New York, a 20% share of her earnings, in exchange for management and support. I invited a variety of contacts at top New York agencies to speak to me about their respective policies and practices for keeping their models — particularly their underaged models — safe at work. I received mostly email silence and unreturned phonecalls.
Two former agency employees told me, on condition of anonymity, that the agencies they had worked for, in the words of one, "didn't send [Richardson] the young girls, knowing full well his predatory behavior." But other sources at those same agencies denied any such de facto policy, and I'm personally aware of several models who were well under 18 — one was just 14 — and represented by agencies like Next and IMG, who were sent on castings and jobs with Richardson. (Richardson's most recent work featuring models under the age of 18 is his fall, 2009, Lacoste campaign, which featured the minors Karlie Kloss and Heidi Rock, who were then 16, and Selina Khan. Richardson also shot an editorial with Kloss for the November, 2008, issue of British Vogue; Kloss turned 16 in August of 2008.) Marc Jacobs, speaking at the same event, had some suggestions for keeping models safe in the industry himself: "If a girl is underage, maybe the girl's agent or chaperon should be present on the shoot. That's the hard part. Who's to blame or who's to watch?"
None of the former and current agency employees I talked to said that their companies had policies on sexual harassment for their models, because models are independent contractors. Modeling isn't the kind of job where you can report unlawful conduct to H.R.

Agencies always hide behind the "independent contractor" thing, as if they don't tell the girls what to do and where to go every single day.

Photographers never want parents on the set, or any other chaperone. Really it's a luxury models can't afford, although an agency will send someone as a translator in limited cases.
 
These Jezebel-articles suck.

It's great that they are critisizing Terry, but I simply can't stand articles that are full of "says an industry insider" - "our source" - "on condition of anonymity" - "insider".....

These are serious alligations and these "insiders" should speak on record.
 
^And lose their jobs?? C'mon, be realistic. No one is gonna go on record with their real name etc unless they can be sure there won't be repercussions. Terry obviously isn't above complaining to agencies!
 
I know they can't put their names in an article like this :rolleyes:;) - but in this case they should shut up.
 
I hope this mess opens up a whole keg of worms......it's WAY past due.
 
the modeling industry in my opinion is a big game. where models have to always please people, of course they travel the world, meet people receive much monetary and momentarily success. it seems until you are a successful model you can call the shots in your career.
 
One comment caught my eye in that Jezebel article, from Federov:

I wonder if any of this relates back to a false assumption that because a model works with her body, that her physical presence is somehow a commodity that isn't entirely hers. It's been bought and sold by the client, or the agency, or the photographer.

Otherwise, I'm having trouble wrapping my mind around why there's such a laissez faire hesitance to take responsibility here from everyone who has the power to affect some change. It's like the normal rules of human decency no longer apply.
 
^Because the casting couch is not a new phenomenon....?

Sure, you can stature an example with Richardson. I'm not sure how such questions can be asked in surprise after knowing the history - including ppl like Gerald Marie and John Casablancas...
 
I know they can't put their names in an article like this :rolleyes:;) - but in this case they should shut up.

I disagree that if someone is not willing to be identified then they should shut up. I know this is not All the President's Men, but reporting using unnamed sources is perfectly valid. I by no means think that we should automatically be comfortable with "unnamed sources" making allegations, but the person reporting the story knows who the sources are and was able to verify that the source is credible. Also bear in mind that two people are "out" and on the record, Jamie Peck and Rie Rasmussen.* The key is if the people reporting on this matter is adhering to journalistic standards and if anyone has a question about that then they should send those reporters / bloggers emails or ask in the comments section.

* Note, Rie has not accused Terry Richardson of doing anything directly to her.
 
Terry Richardson? He is the top of the iceberg, but for him to be there, it means that there is a solid basement deeper...
Who are those people ?

An undefined ennemy isn't still far more dangerous ?

I think Terry Richardson is making fun of us and of the whole fashion industry...
And this is the reason why he's the one who is SO good to blame...
(imo everyone on earth can be subject of fun when it touches to the behaviour... )

A can of worm, possibly... If the worms start to fall, Terry's work wouldn't be that relevant anymore. If terry's head fall, will the basement fall with him ?I wouldn't give my right hand for this, not even the left one.

So yes, let's say that targeting him may help the can to open... You must be right with it.
But it's saying a whole other message there and the ones that are harmful in disquise may understand that they can go on sleeping quietly... And I don't like that message.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
2fashion_terry_385x_700499a.jpg


Source: Times Online article

I think the guy is quite creepy. I don't mind some of his work, but some of it is not exactly about the fashion, it seems to me.

Take a photographer like Helmut Newton, by contrast: sure, some of his imagery was decidedly sexual, in the dominatrix sense especially, but the women he photographed always came across as decidedly powerful, and the clothes (and the shoes!) contributed to their power. He also favoured models who were slightly out of the ordinary and made them into stand outs even more so. He took their unique looks and amped them up further. I always felt that he totally respected women.

I just don't get the same impression from Richardson. Too bad. But if this scandal reveals truth or even if it brings forth more careful measures for sending underaged models out, then there will be some good to come of it. Maybe Richardson can learn from it - maybe???
 
I always hate Terry Richardson. He is a point-and-shoot pornographer disguised as fashion photogrpaher. Have a good look at his books, they are all explicit porns. This guy has lots of powerful connections, big ego but no talent. His works are all about sex, sex, sex...Every time he points a camera at a model, he thinks of nothing other than sex. I have no clue why on Earth people dismiss Rie's story as rumor. You would have to be really blind not to see this guy is a pervert and a complete jerk. His works are arts? Come on, give me a break.


:heart: I can't appreciate anything of his "good" (H&M) works because of his "bad" works (Purple Magazine). Prison for him if its true!!
 
Some people mentioned Helmut Newton when defending Terry. Can I ask why? Did he harass the models, too? Did he have a bad reputation in the fashion industry? Or do they mention him because he also took nude pictures of women?
 
Some people mentioned Helmut Newton when defending Terry. Can I ask why? Did he harass the models, too? Did he have a bad reputation in the fashion industry? Or do they mention him because he also took nude pictures of women?

Let me quote Janice Dickinson from "No lifeguard on duty" - these were the first words Helmut Newton uttered to her, without having been introduced and not on set: "Take off your clothes." She refused (she had no idea who he was and they were in a public place), and he told her she would never work again. Page 77, look it up sometime, it's a good story.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
^ Exactly, if Terry would do that to any model, I'm sure many girls would not be disgusted at all and happy to work with him.
 
^But why would that be defense for Terry?

It's not a defense. The question was why Helmut Newton was frequently brought up for comparison and if *he* was known to disrespect models. It's hardly on the same level, however.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, I've heard of Helmut Newton generally being temperamental - that if someone didn't respond to his direction at the precise moment he gave his order, then he wasn't interested in working with them, and often didn't acknowledge their existence after that. But I've never heard of him being a sexual marauder or crossing any line like that. Perhaps Newton's 'disrespect' went in the opposite direction - instead of being physically familiar to the point of sexual harassment, he went for deliberate remoteness to the point of freezing someone out.
 
Well to be honest, a lot of photographers are just men, you know.... and i don't find it that awful if the so called "pervet conversations" stick at "hey darling, take your clothes off!"...
But what Terry did, at least what we know of him, is on another level of sickness imo...
 
Yes, I've heard of Helmut Newton generally being temperamental - that if someone didn't respond to his direction at the precise moment he gave his order, then he wasn't interested in working with them, and often didn't acknowledge their existence after that. But I've never heard of him being a sexual marauder or crossing any line like that. Perhaps Newton's 'disrespect' went in the opposite direction - instead of being physically familiar to the point of sexual harassment, he went for deliberate remoteness to the point of freezing someone out.

Yeah....I suppose Bill King was famous for his voyeuristic party scene shoots. That's the closest I can think of, as far as behavioral pattern.
 
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "058526dd2635cb6818386bfd373b82a4"
<-- Admiral -->