Terry Richardson’s Work is Degrading to Women

[tigerrouge]

I see, they're people who have problems with sex and hard work.

 

[tigerrouge]

If you look at the wider context of the power imbalance, there's often little real "choice" available.

And the option of withdrawing from a situation is no sign that you have any real power to negotiate or change anything, it merely means you have an escape route.

 

[Over the Sea]

woah, people, calm down there are valid points to each side of the argument IMHO

I agree with most of your argument mellowdrama, but called someone a "****ing idiot" because they don't agree with you is uncalled for and immature.

 

[tigerrouge]

I tend to think it's best to "debate the point, not the person". That way, the discussion can get as lively as you like, but it's nothing insulting, because none of it is personal. It's simply ideas up against each other, and new conclusions coming out of it. Nobody's wrong, nobody's right, it's all about the ideas.

 

[sarehak]

K bye.


I still stand by my word that TR should cease his line of work. Or at least change his ways & be a bit more classier.

 

[lunabella]

now that i think about it, rie has posed for some risque photos herself, not just for terry. it's a bit of the pot calling the kettle black, isn't it?

 

[t-rex]

This isn't about risque photos, it's about sexually harassive, inappropriate behavior at a photo shoot.

 

[noellejv]

now that i think about it, rie has posed for some risque photos herself, not just for terry. it's a bit of the pot calling the kettle black, isn't it?

Really this is about sexual harassment and possibly assault, not fun naked pictures. Pretty much everybody on this forum loves fun naked pictures so it's not really an issue of being prude.

 

[yum_yum]

I actually like Terry's work very much. Terry's photos are fine, p*rn is fine, he should be allowed to***Edtied*** he pleases. He just shouldn't lure them there on the guise of work. When you begin the equation that way, the power is imbalanced and that's what makes it exploitative. This is why Intention is in fact 9/10ths of the law. His intention is wrong.

I genuinely think it's great that so many people feel that it's not exploitative because they would fare well in the situation. If all women felt that way we'd rule the bloody world or at least close the pay gap. But many women don't and you have to take people who aren't perhaps as strong or clever as yourself into account. Those are the people that society and law strive to protect, and young women often fall into that category.

Bottom line is that consenting to pose for a naked picture is not consenting to be involved in a sex act.

Excellent post!

 

[totah]

He's cheap and revolting.

i totally agree. i really respect Rie for speaking up her opinion.

 

[Squizree]

Why the HELL are some people even thinking of blaming Rie?? She's just someone who raised an important issue, she didn't do anything wrong.

And I can not believe ANYONE has the nerve to defend Terry. The man is a PERVERT. There is no nice word for him.
Sexually oriented photography (and even sexual vulgarity) can be done tastefully and effectively. You don't have to bloody cum on a model's face in order to get a message across that can otherwise be communicated just as effectively in other more tasteful and less crude ways than Richardson's.

There is simply NO excuse for his behavior.

 

[reese06]

Why the HELL are some people even thinking of blaming Rie?? She's just someone who raised an important issue, she didn't do anything wrong.

And I can not believe ANYONE has the nerve to defend Terry. The man is a PERVERT. There is no nice word for him.
Sexually oriented photography (and even sexual vulgarity) can be done tastefully and effectively. You don't have to bloody cum on a model's face in order to get a message across that can otherwise be communicated just as effectively in other more tasteful and less crude ways than Richardson's.

There is simply NO excuse for his behavior.

But with this you are limiting how Terry expresses himself. It is his art and it's how he chooses to communicate that message. For Terry, maybe cumming on the model was the most effective way for him to achieve that. If the model consented to it, what is the issue?

 

[Squizree]

^ The issue is 2 things: (a) Having a sexually perverted maniac on the loose and (b) Letting dumbas$ models make decisions by themselves.

Just because the model consented it doesn't make it ok. If a model wants to be involved in such vulgar photography she can go f*ck around as much as she wants in a p*rn film, or in a brothel. They get paid just as much there, their commission really is rather impressive.

 

[michyed]

But with this you are limiting how Terry expresses himself. It is his art and it's how he chooses to communicate that message. For Terry, maybe cumming on the model was the most effective way for him to achieve that. If the model consented to it, what is the issue?

So sexual harassment and bestiality is okay as long as long as it's hidden under the guise of art? Richardson is above the law because he's an "artist"?

 

[Squizree]

^ Honestly ,it's not ok whether the law says so or not.

 

[xerq]

wow it's anarchy in here.
Richardson is in the wrong industry,Hustler is next door i believe.

 

[iluvjeisa]

So sexual harassment and bestiality is okay as long as long as it's hidden under the guise of art? Richardson is above the law because he's an "artist"?

The point that many of you forget is that Richardson is outspoken about something that does go on behind closed doors in some cases. Do you think he is the only one? Would it be ok if he shot nice photos but only hired girls who would sleep with him....? Chances are nobody would dare taking a shot at him then....

 

[Imaginara]

Also, are we not again throwing in two discussions in one?

a) is Terry molesting and abusing his position of power to gain sexual favours of young innocent models? (Yes i know i wrote that a bit specific but you get my point ;D. If so he shall be crucified and burned at the town square (and for legal reasons, read that as being reported and prosecuted by the law =)

b) is what Terry is doing an outspoken artistic expression about how we can percieve p*rn*gr*phy and explicit imagery as accepted if the context (a fashion magazine) is different than the usual one (p*rn*gr*ph*c magazine). And if so, is he doing it right or wrong or whateer.

The debate wether or not he's allowed to break the law in the name of art is not a debate. He's not. As simple as that. Artists need to live within the law as everyone else, and there are several examples of others who have tried that little rule and found it absolute ;D

However, a lot of the posts in this thread is about YOUR perception of what is artistic and what is not. And that is a dangerous slope to go down because it will in the end be based on what the great mass percieves is art. And if that happens, kiss most of fashion and todays art world goodbye. You would not have any of the avante gardé movements, none of the constructivism, abstract expressionists, impressionists, cubists, surrealists, etc. IF the big public were the ones who decided what was ok to call art and what was not. Remember, what YOU think is art, is probably not the same as for example the church pastor down the road thinks (insert any religion of your choise =).

So lets ignore the debate if what he does is art or not, there are many artists out there who are walking very precarious on the edge of taste and trying to be provocative. It is just a discussion that wont work.

NOW... before you go shouting "but he is a filthy pervert" lets go back to the legal issue. IF he is coercing and mistreating models, for artistic purposes or not, he is comitting a crime. Simple as that. Only way to prove this is for models to start coming forward.

He wont be the first NOR the last artist who have tried the "oh but its for art" approach to score some girl. Question is again if the girl has consented to it or not. If she felt threatened and that she would be punished for not doing it, its not consent but force (implied threat is still a threat).

Again just my worthless opinion. Art or not, if he's forcing models he should be prosecuted.

 

[irulan]

As much as it pains me to say so, as I most certainly don't consider Terry's oeuvre very artistic, there's no arguing about it. Today everything is as long as somebody points at it and declares it to be.

It is up to the indvidual to decide whether they pick up whatever it is that makes things arty, the artistic vibe or something...
You'll find stuff like Terry's at your local sex shop. And they call it p*rn there and they're all content with that.
Richard Prince takes pictures of Marlboro campaigns. I love it.
Today there's a spot for every messed-up thing in art, and I think that's a great development. I just stay away from artistic p*rn or p*rn*gr*ph*c art, whatever you want to call it.

I'm annoyed with him not staying in his spot, but that people in an industry for women think it's a great idea to publish him in magazines that portray a very different kind of woman (except maybe VP) from the one he depicts. Like xerq said, if he wants to publish, I recommend Hustler.

And of course the legal issues. I'm still waiting for the models to stand up. Get it out.

 

[nothingless]

At the end of the day - the photos Terry takes aren't illegal. The way he gets them? Well, reading the article about Jamie, and Rie's words, it definitely sounds like it's leaning towards sexual harassment to me.

Sexual harassment is intimidation, bullying or coercion of a sexual nature, or the unwelcome or inappropriate promise of rewards in exchange for sexual favors.

wikipedia

Whether a nude shoot turns to harassment or not, comes down to how it makes the model feel. Like Jamie said - she'd posed nude many times, and always felt fine about it. With Terry, he made her feel gross and ashamed - wishing she'd never done it. That is not a healthy working environment Terry's created there for her. In fact, with the way his assistants were cheering her on and were quick to hand her a towel, intention comes into play too...did he ask her to come back for a photoshoot while thinking in the back of his mind he'd try and get her to perform sexual acts?

It's easy to say if a model didn't like it, she should just walk out or say no. It's not as black and white as that, especially not when the photographer is as famous and influential as Terry - of course that's gonna make girls afraid to say no! There is no equality between model and photographer (the exceptions being perhaps when the model/celeb is as famous or more famous than Terry), and he's taking advantage of that. How is Jamie's story any different from your usual boss-coming-on-to-young-secretary sexual harassment story?