Terry Richardson - Photographer

[Atelier]

Excellent post, sosweet. I actually enjoy his work. In fact, I wish he would take my family's portrait or Christmas card photo for next year.

 

[paprika_hiccup]

Ithere's no doubt that terry builds abuse into his photographs and many models are either too stupid or too weak to see that & object. terry's never the object of derision or abuse in his pics is he, noticed that? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . also his most famous 'muse' susan eldridge - notice she didnt really get as far as people thought she would? [she left him] terry's association HURT her career. shes another waeak and abused terry-object, not a smart girl except to leave him.

The issue of power is prob. the most dominating feature of his work, so I don;t understand why you think that models should "object" to re-enacting it in photographs. Thats what models do- they exist inthe world to pictorially convey an attitude/situation/ect. through photographs. What kind of art would serve to excite, incite, or inspire if people refused to model for anything that was not totally bland or devoid of possibly subversive content? I am not talking about TR here, but modern photography as a whole.

I'm not really going to comment of TR himself, as I've discussed my opinion in previous threads already, but I think that labeling models that shoot with him as victims is a little

I also think that Susan Eldridge is doing really well- she has a sweet contract with Victoria's Secret these days. Not a smart girl? We're not besties or anything, but we have people in common and the word is that she is a great girl. You might want to consider your knowledge of others before you make comments about their intelligence (or lack thereof).

 

[PrinceOfCats]

Agree with M-O-M. A cursory glance at www.terryrichardson.com will reveal that he's a pornographer not a photographer.

 

[Ho-Coture]

very over hyped, kind of stupid, but I do actually like his work, when he isnt making out with 14 year old models.

Is that true? If so, it's sick and just plain wrong.

 

[pointup]

I must say I agree with metal-on-metal... Theres no changing my mind on this man

 

[smashinfashion]

the only thing i really like about tr is his grainy, snapshot aesthetic, but there are plenty of other photographers who do that, ie juergen teller, as mentioned above. as an aside, i have heard many friends tell me he is a super nice guy to hang out with..

 

[lady grey]

not a contender

there's a lot of artworld & pseudo-intellectual claptrap written about terry.
in the end it comes down to the work.
if the above posters who think he's a worthy artist would post 10-20 pics they think are great images by terry we can discuss.

I know a few things about the history of photography, art & fashion photography, and Ive yet to see much [any?] of his work that qualifies as great.

at best you could say he's in the school of realism or satire like bill brandt or mapplethrpe or daumier's cartoons or a more documentarian newton, [or the psychotic english p*rno walker evans or wm. eggleston] but to name terry in the same company of these legendary legitimate artists is blasphemy to their body of work & terry's amateurish uglyness.
his erotic imagery cannot stand with any of the vaunted art photographers like edward weston. compared to quality modern photographers like newton, avedon, testino, penn, even richard kern or demarchelier or bensimon, terry is left poor & wanting not just in the technique, but in the very substance & quality of his aesthetic work. [knowing terry he would agree 100% & buy me a drink. the fact that terry is a fun & convivial fixture on the lower east side doesnt really matter much in this photo discussion, does it??]

Id like to see 10-20 great images that someone here thinks he's shot. Ive seen a great deal of his work and only a few TAMER fashion shots were even good. his p*rn*gr*ph*c-self-worship & model -abuse should be great, but it sucks. he really lets down the cause of erotic & sadistic fashion photography all around. mapplethorpe was talented. terry is hype. unless someone can post substantial picturse of his.

 

[foxinthesnow]

terry's never the object of derision or abuse in his pics is he, noticed that?

I'm not a fan- but I disagree with this. I am not in the mood to fish through his photographs right now (see: why not a fan) but I have seen some images where he was the object of at least some mocking in his self-photos. Ie- his bull fighting theme- there are photos where he is the one about to be ehr, ramed. Not tragic but..

 

[paprika_hiccup]

mapplethorpe was talented. terry is hype. unless someone can post substantial picturse of his.

Apples and oranges I wouldn't possibly think to compare TR to the legions of other fashion/art photogs. you listed. They are really going for a different thing, don't ya think?

I love point and shoot, from-the-hip photography. The way his photos were exhibited at Alleged was very lomo. Multi-picture collages of body parts/faces/items. I'm not saying he's innovative or is bringing something new to his field, but I don't really care I find some kind of joie de vivre is his photos. Or maybe I just like to see a cute guy with a bow tie on his @#&$ ? No matter, it's only my opinion as always, and I not the kind of person to try to convince you otherwise--sorry

I find Mapplethorpe to be a painful bore, BTW It's your boat to float . . . cheers

 

[hugobossdaria]

terry richardson is a pervert if i heard he was making out with daria w i would be mad
that man is a old hag ,probably the only reason why he became a photographer is the make p*rn with models,i went to his site and saw naked old people disgusting metal-on-metal you are soo right.He is a a sick old man that have had sex with girls old enough to be his daughter can some one please tell me the models he made out with? if my 14 yr old daughter told me that she had sex with him first i would punish her severly ,second i would take a trip to terry richardson house and i would have been the one to cause terry richardson's dief .

 

[MulletProof]

He's a disgusting pig. And an untalented disgusting pig, at that.

I'm so tired of people defending him with "oh he challenges our inherent bourgeois values of right and wrong" or "he redefines the line between art and p*rn". No he doesn't. HE DOES NOT. He is sh*t. And his work is sh*t. Plain and simple. I'm not shocked by his photographs because they are not shocking. Sex is not shocking anymore and hasn't been for a very long time.

 

[model_mom]

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

 

[Deleted member 1957]

trust me to go to that site. a warning though NEVER visit that site when you have nothing to do you might just get hooked to p*rn

there are some roses in the concrete

british vogue

covers

 

[Deleted member 1957]

vogue paris

vogue homme

nylon...tacky but very lovable

 

[sosweet]

ladygrey:

What qualifies as art? No one can really answer it because it's all based on personal preference. Nowadays anyway. I don't think you have the right to word your posts in such a way as to imply that your word is the way of the world. And bringing into your background knowledge of this art has nothing to do with anything.

Here's some standard nice editorial stuff. Not everything is amazing.
I like the Vogue Homme therapy story...

http://www.terryrichardson.com/Editorials/Vogue%20Homme/Vogue%20Hommme%20index.html

http://www.terryrichardson.com/Editorials/Paris%20Vogue/Paris%20Vogue%20index.html

Proof he knows how to use a few lights with a softbox:

http://www.terryrichardson.com/Editorials/Japan%20Vogue/Japan%20Vouge%20index.html

He also did an editorial with Daria a few months back for Paris Vogue or another Parisian magazine I thought was rather nice. It wasn't in his usual style, albeit still referenced his use of simplistic methods of shooting. Stylistically it was close to the Vogue Homme story mentioned earlier.

These aren't amazing images when looked at in comparison to the whole world of photography, but within his realm they're great. They show he knows what to do, when necessary.

Once again, I'm not saying he's an amazing photographer, he's far from that. But he's not just some random amateur conceptual NYC artist ladygrey makes him out to be.

 

[PrinceOfCats]

So he has some technical ability. That just makes him an artisanal pornographer. It doesn't bring him any closer to being an artist.

 

[sashatheelf]

makes out with 14 year olds?

please.

 

[sosweet]

So he has some technical ability. That just makes him an artisanal pornographer. It doesn't bring him any closer to being an artist.

Why can't p*rn be art?

Ok let me clarify:

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

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?

Additionally, I don't think any of your p*rn-bashers have ever actually seen more that a few p*rn flicks, and if you base your knowledge of p*rn on surfing the internet late at night while your parents are sleeping, you've got a whole ton of things to learn.

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.

 

[PrinceOfCats]

Because p*rn*gr*phy is designed to titillate and art is designed to interest. You can have art with people having sex, you can even have art depicting dirty great big orgies but Terry Richardson just isn't that art. The stuff is lame, I bet that at least half the people on this forum have had more interesting and thought provoking sex than the stuff he takes photographs of.

 

[sosweet]

PrinceofCats, just because you don't find the stuff Terry Richardson shows in his pictures "lame" and uninteresting or gross, doesn't mean that everyone else does too. Do me a favour and drop by your local Adult Video Store and look at the different categories out there.

It's not just films made by perverts whose work no one will watch. It's a billion dollar industry that's not going to go away.

"Because p*rn*gr*phy is designed to titillate and art is designed to interest"

p*rn*gr*phy interests, and art titillates.

I don't think art has that simple of a function.