Terry Richardson - Photographer

[PrinceOfCats]

And don't give me that bullsh*t, read people's posts in a bit more depth before you start having a go at them. I don't give a damn about your midnight wanking habit or whatever. I'm not making any moral judgements about the man he's just a crap photographer.

 

[Clementine]

Funnily enough, I found Terry Richardson's site last night. Honestly, I find his "nude girls" and "nude guys" pictures just... vulgar. Anyone could take those pictures, and I'm not a prude, but they ARE p*rn*gr*phy. Whether or not p*rn*gr*phy is art is another question. But some of those shots are disgusting. They don't celebrate the human body, that's for sure.
On the other hand, I do like some of his editorials and ad campaigns. I think that these pictures come much closer to art that is "pushing it".
I know that many people have applauded him for his realism and gritty pictures. But as a photographer, he's really not very far up there in terms of talent.
There just isn't anything technically or artistically impressive about his pictures of women getting their t*ts out or giving blow jobs.
It's all just the shock factor in the end.

 

[thefashionista]

tr's photos never fail to amuse me. i greatly enjoyed his pictures of jason schwartzman in NYLON's guy issue- he captured motion. there are pictures of his that i could argue for great (not in regards to aesthetics, but in sheer cleverness
by the way, i'll put links for pictures with breasts/penises/vaginas.

http://www.terryrichardson.com/images/650/New%20Portraits/Alex%20Gun.jpg

http://www.terryrichardson.com/images/650/New%20Portraits/Bike%20and%20cab.jpg

^that one, while i realize could be seen as cruel and exploitative, is damn funny. admit it.

i think ^ is a great photograph.

i personally despice the richards sisters and this jagger girl, so ^ pleases me.

well, maybe it is just me, but i find many of his (non-p*rn, of course) photographs endearing, and very real.

i like himB)

 

[hugobossdaria]

i just saw the website weed and sh*t like that is displayed he is not no photographer
he is a pornographer most of his work is p*rn i. yes it is real but i dont like it. why would he like to photograph men showing there penis it is nasty i do not care what if he has photograph id,nylon,rebel,and one cover of vogue this man is a pervert his shoots look homemade i can take better pictures i do not care what the f*ck anyone says but he is a p*rn star in the making what type of photography website are only for adults over 18 if it is not p*rn. he is making women look like sluts i do not think he is some f*ckin photographer his photos are disgusting and i think that man is nothing but an old man having sex with anyone he can, he also is a pornographer who is a f*ck up photographer he has no talent he should have continued being a rock star..!!

 

[keesani]

Why can't p*rn be art?

Ok let me clarify:

Why can't p*rn be artistic in nature?

Technically - Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal. - it can be. But there has to be a place we draw the line, not all p*rn is artistic and it's up to individuals to decide if what Terry Richardson does is p*rn or art. IMHO Terry Richardson's work (work being the stuff he put into his latest gallery) does not cause any sort of sexual arousal, just a disgust. So that means that to me I don't see it as p*rn, but I sure as hell don't see it as art. To me, it's just really bad, tacky photography.

There's tons of AMAZING p*rn*gr*phy out there, that doesn't even seem like p*rn. The whole intent of p*rn, I would believe, is to arouse the viewer. Now, if you can do that without showing off a lot of stuff, wouldn't that make you an artist in your own right?

The definition of 'AMAZING p*rn*gr*phy' would be?

Let's put it like this, if I was on Terry Richardson's official site, browsing through one of the nude galleries and someone walked in on me, they sure as hell would think I was looking at p*rn. However, if I was looking at artistic nudes, people are able to acknowledge the difference. There is a very, very distinct line between p*rn and art. Terry Richardson's 'art' does not, IMO come close to that line. There is nothing artistic about his work, I can use a softbox but that doesn't make me much of a photographer.

Some of the editorials, and covers (such as people have posted) I'll admit were interesting at the most, nothing life changing. The photography is pretty mediocre though.

Just my two cents.

 

[Clementine]

Let's put it like this, if I was on Terry Richardson's official site, browsing through one of the nude galleries and someone walked in on me, they sure as hell would think I was looking at p*rn. However, if I was looking at artistic nudes, people are able to acknowledge the difference. There is a very, very distinct line between p*rn and art. Terry Richardson's 'art' does not, IMO come close to that line. There is nothing artistic about his work, I can use a softbox but that doesn't make me much of a photographer.

you are so right

 

[Incroyable]

What would one say about the photographs of Pierre Molinier?

He took self-portraits, and portraits of mannikins. And never had assistants, etc.

 

[Incroyable]

you are so right

Although there is a distinct dualism with reagrds to the realm of art, and the sexual arousal.

Take Jeff Koons.

 

[ablutophobic]

I like his stuff that isn't supposed to be "edgy" and push boundaries, but I find most of his images with penises and stuff just plain gross, not art at all. I mean, lots of the photos it looks like even I could have taken and I suck at using my camera. I really like that Tom Ford picture ^

 

[Clementine]

What would one say about the photographs of Pierre Molinier?

He took self-portraits, and portraits of mannikins. And never had assistants, etc.

This photograph made me think -- I had to look twice. The facial expression, the pose, it kind of reminds me of the Asexual Revolution W editorial, but there's something very scary about it.
Also, Molinier took his pictures in the 50s/60s, right? I think that makes a huge difference.
Now compare this to a Terry Richardson topless girl picture.
I don't know, to me the distinction is pretty clear

 

[keesani]

What would one say about the photographs of Pierre Molinier?

He took self-portraits, and portraits of mannikins. And never had assistants, etc.

There's a huge difference between lomography, which is almost spontaneous photography (and hell I feel like i'm disgracing my arists integrity by assuming Richardson's work is art) and art photography. Molinier, Koons (I was never really a big fan) and even Newton, were artists that inspired and brought something new to the world. This kind of art is posed, conceptual, abstract art, a lot of thought has been put into the photo, every little bit. The famous lomography saying 'don't think, just shoot' applies to Richardson. His work isn't art, just a scrap book of of what he wants to remember he could get people to do when he's old(er).

 

[Incroyable]

Pierre Molinier is another of my favored artists.

The facial expression is quite sublime really.

Lomography along with those Holga camera "art" always struck me as rather pretentious. In a rather style without substance sort of way.

Guy Bourdin once left his model to lay on a glass table for 7 hours to find the perfect flower to coordinate with the model's skin. And she was not allowed to move.

 

[Incroyable]

Yes, he took his portraits in the 50's, and 60's.

His suicide was in 1976.

 

[hugobossdaria]

is that jessica miller

 

[eunka]

is that jessica miller

yes

 

[metal-on-metal]

Why do we get the same reaction everytime this guy's name comes up?

PLEASE DO RESEARCH BEFORE CATEGORIZING THINGS. and on top of that, PLEASE DON'T SAY SOMETHING IS BAD BECAUSE IT MAKES YOU FEEL ANGRY OR UNCOMFORTABLE INSIDE. That's usually the reason it's MADE.

I tried to make this clear in my original post but maybe I wasn't explicit enough. I am not denouncing Terry on the grounds of morality. I'm not some bougie grandmama who is offended by his work or is secretly aroused by it and can't admit it. His work simply leaves me cold. It's not well executed and most of the time, it's not even provocative.

Helmut Newton, Pierre et Gilles, Mario Testino, Guy Bourdin, Pierre Molinier, and Robert Mapplethorpe made/make images that are highly sexual in nature but, at the same time, serve to create and sustain a narrative while showcasing highly-skilled photography. Terry does not. It's just boring, with an overwrought attempt to shock. It borders on the infantile.

 

[metal-on-metal]

That said, I think this image is absolutely beautiful.

But that probably has more to do with Kate Moss and the stunning sunset than Terry's skill.

 

[Spacemiu]

I tried to make this clear in my original post but maybe I wasn't explicit enough. I am not denouncing Terry on the grounds of morality. I'm not some bougie grandmama who is offended by his work or is secretly aroused by it and can't admit it. His work simply leaves me cold. It's not well executed and most of the time, it's not even provocative.

Helmut Newton, Pierre et Gilles, Mario Testino, Guy Bourdin, Pierre Molinier, and Robert Mapplethorpe made/make images that are highly sexual in nature but, at the same time, serve to create and sustain a narrative while showcasing highly-skilled photography. Terry does not. It's just boring, with an overwrought attempt to shock. It borders on the infantile.

exactly...

although he makes some nice images.

 

[model_mom]

I tried to make this clear in my original post but maybe I wasn't explicit enough. I am not denouncing Terry on the grounds of morality. I'm not some bougie grandmama who is offended by his work or is secretly aroused by it and can't admit it. His work simply leaves me cold. It's not well executed and most of the time, it's not even provocative.

Helmut Newton, Pierre et Gilles, Mario Testino, Guy Bourdin, Pierre Molinier, and Robert Mapplethorpe made/make images that are highly sexual in nature but, at the same time, serve to create and sustain a narrative while showcasing highly-skilled photography. Terry does not. It's just boring, with an overwrought attempt to shock. It borders on the infantile.

My little comment was in effect a "Oh no here we go again." I could care less about Mr. Richardsons "art" and I am not a Grandma who is offended by it,or aroused by it (not even secretly) I just think it's best not to bash someone who is a key figure in the fashion industry at the moment. Especially on a public forum.

 

[Golden_butterfly]

What happend after " Home Alone " ?

*shakes head*

H