Terry Richardson’s Work is Degrading to Women

[YoninahAliza]

^Whoa. Dude. Not okay, not okay. Women aren't always "helpless victims" and when they are, it's often because of circumstances which have put them in such a position. Of course an individual often has the opportunity for agency in any given situation (although this isn't always the case), however, when it comes to something such as up and coming models and fashion industry heavy-weights, there is a completely skewed power dynamic at play here. These models don't really have much agency in many of these situations, they are subjected to the whims of their agencies or of individuals working in fashion (photographers, editors, etc). And unfortunately far too many women end up in situations which they do not have the voice and power to take back agency and stand up for themselves. It is not these women's faults for what happened to them, no matter how many people try to shame and blame them. They should have been protected by their agencies and by these fashion industry people. And I think the fact that they were not is utterly heartbreaking. The fact that people are often not willing to listen and side with a women whose's been taken advantage of because they have a job often makes them look sexy (because apparently looking "sexy" is equal to be promiscuous ), is pretty damn misogynistic I'd say. Every time I read articles and talk with people about Terry Richardson (and other situations like this) it becomes all the more apparent that we are living in a society of r*pe culture. And it boggles my mind just how oblivious a lot of people are to this fact.

 

[Birkin]

^ in case it wasn't very clear, the above statement i made was ironic mode on. Women have always a choice, no matter how many people try to exonerate them and blame everyone except them. And if we live in a r*pe society is because women allow it by following the line instead of standing for their rights.

 

[Not Plain Jane]

Birkin, that's too simplified in my opinion. "Women allow it" doesn't make sense. If someone is assaulted she (or he) doesn't "allow" it because it's not consensual. Also, in some societies women are stoned to death for trying the "stand for their rights" yes? Thus, it's not as easy as you make it out to be.

But getting back, specifically, to Richardson and his work, you have a point that people like Gaga, Miley, Beyonce, Kate Moss, Lohan, etc, CHOOSE to work with him and strike the stupid and degrading poses that they do. And as far as we know, those experiences are a-okay. In other words, they are consensual and above-board.

However, while the younger, and sometimes unknown, models also sign contracts and agree to work with him, from what we know, they are allegedly taken advantage of during photo-shoots by ultimately being coerced to do things they did not set out to do or to pose in ways they did not intend to do, and therefore they leave feeling ashamed and possibly having been assaulted. How can they alone be culpable then? Sure, they agreed to work with him and signed contracts. That's true. But it's not feasible to say that they alone are to blame for what ensued. Richardson is to blame - as are his assistants - and even more so, because they are the ones with the power. They are able to give this model work and make her promises in exchange for ... whatever.

 

[Shiru]

Yes, the one and only person. If there is no model, there is no conceived photoshoot, nor person who pays, nor photographer, stylist or publisher.

This is like who came first, the chicken or the egg? If there was no photographer conceiving it and doing it, a model wouldn't be able to do it either (I imagine it'd be difficult to be inside a trashcan and take a selfie to achieve the same photo ). And if there isn't a someone paying (whether it's the photographer or even the model providing the money) for the model, shoot, and photographer, there wouldn't be any of those either.
You are definitely over-simplifying by blaming everything on the model.

But the truth of this matter is that women are a key piece in this chess board, and they have the power to change this situation. If instead of that they choose to accept the money, or accept the fame, or do it because other girl will do it anyway, then we'll have to question ourselves who is degrading who when things like this happen, are the photographers, editors, the fashion world degrading women, or are women degrading themselves?

And the truth is not all women do have the power - or at least they don't want to shoulder the consequences of wielding that power and changing the situation (getting sued, career getting destroyed, etc.). One group alone (aka the models) trying to fix the issue is not enough, so even if, as you say, the models have the "power" - they cannot convince anybody else to change if they are not willing.

And to answer your question, it's both. What you've described is essentially exploitation. It's morally and ethically wrong for both parties to agree - the model for taking the money because she wanted or needed it, and the client for taking advantage of this want or need.

The difference is in cases of exploitation like these, the responsibility of change falls more heavily on the shoulders of the person with more power and means to change it. It's not solely their responsibility, but with more power comes more responsibility. The crux of the matter is that all parties need to work together rather than point fingers and play the "blame game."

 

[Not Plain Jane]

I really do find the Bryan Singer case to be a good comparison/correlative here. After all, he, too, is being accused - in this case by several young men, some of whom were "of age" when the incidents took place - of exploiting his power for sexual favours/assault. And in his case, like in Terry's, there is not one but several accusations, not to mention a long history of problems and unprofessionalism in the work place. In both cases, while they didn't usually exploit well-known actors/models, they took advantage of actors/models who were like "extras" trying to advance their careers, and thus, perhaps, more vulnerable to coercion. Anyhow, it's an valid comparison and it'll be interesting to see how Singer's case plays out.

 

[Fantomette]

^ in case it wasn't very clear, the above statement i made was ironic mode on. Women have always a choice, no matter how many people try to exonerate them and blame everyone except them. And if we live in a r*pe society is because women allow it by following the line instead of standing for their rights.

Your last sentence is very disturbing.

I like what Joe Biden said two days ago:
"We almost always ask the wrong questions when it comes to sexual assault. We continue to ask questions like ‘What were you wearing? What did you say? What did you?’.The real question is what made him think that he had the right to do what he did?" (abcnews.go.com)

 

[YoninahAliza]

^ in case it wasn't very clear, the above statement i made was ironic mode on. Women have always a choice, no matter how many people try to exonerate them and blame everyone except them. And if we live in a r*pe society is because women allow it by following the line instead of standing for their rights.

Sorry but that statement doesn't seem very ironic to me. Especially since your follow up answers have been incredibly shaming of women who've been in such situations. So many people fail to realize that it's not as simple as a "women having a choice." There are so many factors at hand (many which have been continually mentioned in this thread) that contribute to the exploitation of women and which make it difficult for them to make the choices that they may wish to make. By solely placing the blame on women, instead of teaching men not to sexually assault/r*pe, it indicates that we live in a r*pe culture. After all, r*pe culture is a society in which sexual assault, violence, and r*pe is trivialized, ignored, joked about, or made to seem as the norm. Also, I really like the quote that Fantomette posted by Joe Biden, whose has had close ties to this movement since the 90s (he helped create the Violence Against Women Act btw), it correctly points out one of the questions that people should be asking. And to bring this back to Terry Richardson (and others like him), why did he think he had the right to do what he did? Why did he think it was okay to use his position as a well known fashion photographer to coerce women into doing things they were not comfortable doing? He may not have made sets uncomfortable for well known celebrities but allegations have been made that the sets for less well known models were not nice places to work on. Just because he didn't abuse his position with high profile celebrities doesn't make his actions any less disturbing, it just shows that Richardson knew what he was doing, he was exploiting those who were not in an equal position of power to him.

 

[Birkin]

all my earlier posts were refering to the title of this post " terry richardson's work is degrading to women" and not to the sexual harrasement or any other situations women live all around the world because they can no be extrapolated.

Sumarizing , terry Richardon' couldn't degrade any woman if no woman would lend herself to it. They just have to say "No, thanks, throw yourself into a garbage can if you want" i don't think it's that hard.

Regarding the sexual harrasement : if Terry Richarsdon took advantage of her situation to sexually assault any of her models i hope they send him to jail for many years, if for the contrary , the model decided to falsely accuse Terry Richardson to get revenge at him because he didn't wanted to make a photoshoot with her or for any other reason, i hope they send her to prison for many years. Because i wasnt there i'll let justice to resolve the matter.

 

[fashionista-ta]

Yes, the one and only person. If there is no model, there is no conceived photoshoot, nor person who pays, nor photographer, stylist or publisher.

If not one model, won't there generally be another? There will always be someone naïve and inexperienced enough to make any offensive shoot possible from the model's perspective. That is not where the power is in this situation.


There are many fewer publishers and top photographers, making their 'no' more meaningful.


According to your thought process, the least powerful woman in the room is to blame. However, if she was treated poorly, "you weren't there," and you don't have much to say about that. Interesting.


I guess you and I won't be agreeing about much soon, so I'll leave it at that.


I see that Kate Moss is photographed by Terry Richardson in the current US Harper's Bazaar. One letter to the editor coming up.


Does he also shoot Valentino ads?

 

[kokobombon]

He shot (and appears in) the Valentino Garavani ads.

 

[fashionista-ta]

^ Thanks, that's what it looked like. May just have to chat with the boutique about that next time I'm passing by.

Got an e-mail from US Bazaar that they are cancelling my subscription after my latest e-mail Probably just automated incompetence ... will save them from hearing from me every month I guess.

 

[Les_Sucettes]

Because he asked her to do things and she didn't say no, she did them. That is consent. She wasn't an underage girl, she was 19 and old enough to know better. If she had said no or expressed th a t she was uncomfortable and then he kept going, that would be a crime.

Actually the law is not as black and white as you are trying to make it.
If you can prove you were coerced by someone in a situation of power, with a well studied modus operandi designed to get to a situation where the victim feels trapped into given her consent into something that she/he would never agree in the first place, there is a crime to answer. Being photographed by a total stranger performing sex acts, that could published, is not something that falls into the go with the flow of things. Agreeing to pose nude is not agreeing to p*rn*gr*phy.

 

[Serenity Soul]

I see that Kate Moss is photographed by Terry Richardson in the current US Harper's Bazaar. One letter to the editor coming up.

He also shot the new Rolling Stone cover with Neil Patrick Harris, for those who subscribe.

 

[Not Plain Jane]

Oh, and guess what? He's naked!

 

[Emmanuelle]

Just put yourselves into these girls' shoes for a moment ! When you read the accusations, I think it's very clear and easy to understand. Richardson has authority, he is a famous fashion photographer. It seems he and all of his team are manipulating the girls, making them feel unconfortable and all being like "oh it's okay it's gonna be cool !". He puts them in a state they cannot say anything. I've never been personally in this kind of situation, but I understand perfectly how a girl can feel helpless and cannot say a big "no" because she frightened and in state of shock. They must feel terrible and ashamed, but thay are not responsible. That's tricky, it's not as easy as it seems to say "stop this" in this situation. He has absolutely no excuse, it is manipulation and unfortunaltely it's well done because many people think it's okay.

 

[tomtakesphotos]

Someone needs to bring up Mr. BW with all of this TR discussion. I'm such a fan of his work but man, every single up & coming male model seems to have a horror story about him.

A good example of some of the sexism in this industry.

 

[TianSoFine]

^No, I don't think this is proof about sexism against men, I think it's the fact that Terry Richardson is one of the biggest fashion photographers out there and his controversial images being very famous, so therefore sure to stir up discussion. Excuse my ignorance, but who's the "Mr. BW" you're referring to?

 

[ad041715]

^ Bruce Weber

 

[kokobombon]

I know this is off topic so can someone please PM me the Bruce Weber scandal? I´ve never heard anything and couldn´t find anything online...

 

[Fernini]

The only Bruce Weber scandal tha I can remember was when he(or someone from the production) fired a model for eating a croissant.

http://forums.thefashionspot.com/f63/male-model-fired-eating-croissant-bruce-weber-abercrombie-fitch-photoshoot-114135.html