Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Pro Business Discussion => Topic started by: Ellis Vener on June 16, 2014, 01:21:06 pm
-
http://nymag.com/thecut/2014/06/terry-richardson-interview.html
-
Thanks for the great link. In fact, Terry Richardson has been under attack by fashion photographers and many fail to understand his approach.
-
It's not fashion photographer's that have been attacking him, but people who feel that he may have abused his position.
Good article Ellis.
-
A photographer who sleeps with his models!? Unheard of!
-
Richardson upsets lots of people's apple carts. To cry "exploitation!" in a business completely built on exploitation is more than a bit hypocritical.
As for photographers being jealous of him, of course that's true. Same thing with some photographers' attitude towards Annie Leibovitz even while the try to figure how to copy what she was doing last last year or what Avedon was doing 35 years ago. In Australia I've read that this is called the "Tall Poppy" Syndrome: if you stand out above the crowd you deserve to be cut down to size.
I'm not a big fan of Richardson's work but then again as a rule I'm not really into fashion or celebrity photography. I do see how Richardson (and Leibovitz, Bailey, Avedon, Penn and Beaton) changed the game in portrait and fashion work. I think some photographers are insanely jealous of that. The last three are dead and Bailey is older, so Richardson and Leibovitz are considered fair game.
-
Could this be a form of moral panic? The genre has enjoyed a resurgence in recent years, for instance with Putin and gays.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_panic
http://www.ashgate.com/pdf/SamplePages/Ashgate-Research-Companion-to-Moral-Panics-Intro.pdf
-
Again, I don't recall photographers attacking him. Some of his younger female subjects however have felt he abused his position of power as a very influential photographer and their youth/inexperience to get them to do things that they may not want to have done.
There's been several very famous people exposed in the UK in the last few years who did just that. Nothing to do with moral panic, simply a case of people abusing their celebrity and finally being unmasked. The situation with Richardson seems to echo aspects of the Jimmy Saville case.
-
... Some of his younger female subjects however have felt he abused his position of power as a very influential photographer and their youth/inexperience to get them to do things that they may not want to have done...
Oh, please! Were they underage? Was there force used? Drugged? Everybody and his mother-in-law knows, since, like, kindergarten age, what "sleeping to the top" means. Now, when they reach it, they'd like to think it is because of their enormous talent alone, of course. Or if they do not reach it, they'd like to have someone to blame. Anyone but themselves.
-
Is it okay for a professor to seduce his student by holding her grades over her head? Is it okay for a boss to ask for sex from his secretary while implying her future employment would be in jeopardy?
I dont see any difference between those example and what Terry Richardson did.
There are many photographers whom I aspire to and are jealous of; Terry Richardson is not one of them. He, Leibovitz, Avedon, etc. could not have never existed and I would not care, so I dont desire to see his reputation burn due to a misguided sense of schadenfreude. However, I do wish to see it burn, because he is a predator. He abused his power, plain and simple.
-
Oh, please! Were they underage? Was there force used? Drugged? Everybody and his mother-in-law knows, since, like, kindergarten age, what "sleeping to the top" means. Now, when they reach it, they'd like to think it is because of their enormous talent alone, of course. Or if they do not reach it, they'd like to have someone to blame. Anyone but themselves.
So you don't think men in powerful positions ever use that to get sexual favours from younger women, when they [the women] do not really want to go there and it must always be the women sleeping their way up the greasy pole when sex between a powerful man and a young women happens?
Sounds dangerously like you'd probably excuse a rapist if the women was dressed attractively. As it must be her fault in that case.
Certainly, some women use sex to advance themselves and some men use their power or position to get themselves sex. However, only one of those is fully consensual.
-
Is it okay for a professor to seduce his student by holding her grades over her head? Is it okay for a boss to ask for sex from his secretary while implying her future employment would be in jeopardy?...
Was it ever shown or proved that there was a quid pro quo request coming from him?
-
... Certainly, some women use sex to advance themselves and some men use their power or position to get themselves sex. However, only one of those is fully consensual.
So, which one was it in his case? Or you just assume that it must be the latter? God forbid that two adults might actually want to have sex. Especially in a situation that is highly sexually charged, meant to cause arousal, meant to sell sex (and a product with it) - which his style of photography apparently is, and the very reason he is so sought after by companies wanting to use sex to sell their products.
-
Like Henri Matisse and Pablo Picasso before him, TR seemingly lives an authentic life, does his art the way he wants, makes a great deal of money, sleeps with lots of models and doesn't give a crap to others' opinions, while many others are jealous because they've followed the spoon-fed mantra/aesthetics and have done everything that they were told to do and still aren't getting anywhere closer to where TR stands.
-
Maybe many others are jealous. And? He's being criticised for abusing a lot of young women.
-
So, which one was it in his case? Or you just assume that it must be the latter? God forbid that two adults might actually want to have sex.....
I think you seem to be missing the point. It has been said by several people that they did not want to have sex, they felt coerced into it or felt so uncomfortable with what was going on that they left. That's those who've gone on the record, it seems there are also others who are too worried about their careers to say anything.
This is a chap who thinks taking his own clothes off will make the model feel more comfortable/at ease and rings up his mates to get the numbers up for a bukkake shoot.
....Especially in a situation that is highly sexually charged, meant to cause arousal, meant to sell sex (and a product with it) - which his style of photography apparently is, and the very reason he is so sought after by companies wanting to use sex to sell their products.
That's true I forgot about the photos of Barack Obama fellating TR. ::)
Not all his work is extreme, he's a famous fashion/lifestyle photographer, so if you go expecting to do say a fashion or an arty shoot , you don't expect to end up with the photographer jerking himself over you. I only became aware of his most extreme stuff after allegations starting being made. I'd only ever seen very tame stuff by him before, so had no idea of his more hardcore imagery and apparently that's tame compared some of the stuff mentioned in the article. Have you actually seen his work as your reply indicates otherwise? Here's some - very not safe for work. (http://imisstheoldterry-acopy.tumblr.com/)
Maybe you should read this Guardian article (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/17/terry-richardson-new-york-magazine-model) by one of his unwilling subjects and how the NY Mag article glossed over things. Also it seems like the article on TR rather than rehabilitate him, it has made even more women come out and explain how he predates on women (http://jezebel.com/i-felt-a-dick-pressing-into-my-face-terry-richardson-s-1589474038?utm_campaign=socialfow_jezebel_twitter&utm_source=jezebel_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow).
It's not like TR is alone in this as The Model Alliance (http://modelalliance.org/) has been formed in response to this long term issue of photographers and agents using young models for sex through abusing their position.
-
Yes, I've seen it before... hardly seems like they are unwilling participants. Those who were offered to work with him surely knew his reputation, that's hardly a secret. So, free to walk away, plenty of other photographers around. I mean, we are not talking about nuns or Amish girls who took a wrong turn while visiting New York. Those are people who chose such a lifestyle for a reason. Tavel, glamor, sun, sand, and yes... sex. Like Hollywood starlets who start a career in porno movies and later desperately would like to erase that. They knew what they are getting into. We now want to make the process politically correct!? Porn, fashion, movies, sex, but no touching!? Immaculate conception!?
-
Yes, I've seen it before... hardly seems like they are unwilling participants. Those who were offered to work with him surely knew his reputation, that's hardly a secret. So, free to walk away, plenty of other photographers around. I mean, we are not talking about nuns or Amish girls who took a wrong turn while visiting New York. Those are people who chose such a lifestyle for a reason. Tavel, glamor, sun, sand, and yes... sex. Like Hollywood starlets who start a career in porno movies and later desperately would like to erase that. They knew what they are getting into. We now want to make the process politically correct!? Porn, fashion, movies, sex, but no touching!? Immaculate conception!?
Really!? ??? Did you even read the links with accounts from his alleged victims?
You seem like an apologist for rapists. Caveman attitudes like this are why rape victims get such poor response after the event, as you are basically victim blaming. The "She wore a short skirt, so she was asking for it" and other such nonsensical and old fashioned ways of thinking. That attitude is also how serial sexual predators get away with their crimes for so long. TR reminds me very much of Jimmy Saville a major UK celebrity who got away with sexual abuse for 54 years despite children/young women complaining [and being fobbed off] for most of that time. Even Margret Thatcher, the Prime Minister was a close friend and Prince Charles sent him birthday cards whilst all this was going on. His fame, wealth and power kept the police away until after he died when he was exposed by a rival TV station to the BBC, where he worked for decades and who ignored his dubious reputation.
I can't work out if you are being incredibly naive about all this or that you are very deeply and very unpleasantly misogynistic.
TR's bad reputation is only now known about because people have now come out to complain about his behaviour. Plus why even assume everyone even knows who is, particularly young/inexperienced models?
Also do you even realise that choosing to act in a porn film to get some money is very, very different from being sexually assaulted or raped?
BTW, I wouldn't deny that some people may have had sexual relations [by choice] that they then regret or that some women will fabricate stories to implicate men. Which may be the case with Woody Allen and Mia Farrow.
-
... You seem like an apologist for rapists. Caveman attitudes like this... I can't work out if you are being incredibly naive about all this or that you are very deeply and very unpleasantly misogynistic... Also do you even realise that choosing to act in a porn film to get some money is very, very different from being sexually assaulted or raped?
Wow! Thanks for that barrage of "compliments"! Where in this thread (or any other) have I ever attacked you personally in such a vicious manner!? You or anyone else? Have I ever psycho-analized your reasons behind your positions? I thought we are discussing issues, in rather general terms. But apparently, it is much easier for you to go ad hominem, especially against a straw man you created.
I am pretty thick skinned when it comes to debate, but you are really testing the boundaries of forum etiquette.
-
If you do not want to be described in such an uncomplimentary manner, then there's a simple solution. Do not behave in any way you would not wish to be described.
It's also tedious when people try to claim ad hominen as a way of distancing themselves from their unpleasant views. As if their views and themselves were separate entities.
You seem to think models/women are fair game for photographers to prey upon, because that is what they should expect. I think that's an appalling attitude and then you witter on about forum etiquette, which seems more important to to you than sexual assault or rape. Good to know where your priorities are.
-
... It's also tedious when people try to claim ad hominen as a way of distancing themselves from their unpleasant views. As if their views and themselves were separate entities...
Then be the first to revise the standard dictionary definition and the very essence of ad hominem concept: "attacking an opponent's motives or character rather than the policy or position they maintain."
-
If you do not want to be described in such an uncomplimentary manner, then there's a simple solution. Do not behave in any way you would not wish to be described.
It's also tedious when people try to claim ad hominen as a way of distancing themselves from their unpleasant views. As if their views and themselves were separate entities.
You seem to think models/women are fair game for photographers to prey upon, because that is what they should expect. I think that's an appalling attitude and then you witter on about forum etiquette, which seems more important to to you than sexual assault or rape. Good to know where your priorities are.
I don't know whether you're a male or female member here. But I guess gender doesn't really matter if we can take a deeper look at how some women have expressed their views - I don't know whether or not that's unpleasant according to the indoctrination that you've received - on the issue. What occurs to me at the moment is what Andrea Dworkin wrote in her influential book Intercourse, and let me quote:
The normal f^ck by a normal man is taken to be an act of invasion and ownership undertaken in a mode of predation.
Women have been chattels to men as wives, as prostitutes, as sexual and reproductive servants. Being owned and being f^cked are or have been virtually synonymous experiences in the lives of women. He owns you; he f^cks you. The f^cking conveys the quality of the ownership: he owns you inside out. The f^cking conveys the passion of his dominance: it requires access to every hidden inch. He can own everything around you and everything on you and everything you are capable of doing as a worker or servant or ornament; but getting inside you and owning your insides is possession: deeper, more intimate, than any other kind of ownership. Intimate, raw, total, the experience of sexual possession for women is real and literal…
In the f^ck, the man expresses the geography of his dominance: her sex, her insides are part of his domain as a male… Women live inside this reality of being owned and being f^cked: are sensate inside it; the body learning to respond to what male dominance offers as touch, as sex, as love. For women, being possessed is the sex that has to meet the need for love or tenderness or physical affection; therefore, it comes to mean, to show, the intensity of desire; and being erotically owned by a man who takes you and f^cks you is a physically charged and meaningful affirmation of womanhood or femininity or being desired.
-
Then be the first to revise the standard dictionary definition and the very essence of ad hominem concept: "attacking an opponent's motives or character rather than the policy or position they maintain."
Still avoiding the fact that your views seem quite iffy I see. Also missing the point that if say for example, someone describe someone else as a racist bigot, because they express racist and bigoted views, that may be simply descriptive of them. The fact that is is not flattering does not make necessarily it an ad hominen attack and therefore their statement invalid. Which is a tactic people like to use in forums as a deflection away from unpleasant things they may have said. As indeed you have done here.
You are victim blaming and making excuses for rapists - not something to be proud of really. Now if your character or motives are misogynistic, then that is why you hold a position or policy that is anti-women. They are not separate entities.
A better example of an ad hominen attack would be calling another person devious and ugly, whilst debating the merits of the best racquet to play table tennis, as there is no connection between the debate and the personal comments. We are not talking about facts here like how many pixels can fit on the head of a pin or the best racquet, but attitudes which come directly from one's character. Your attitude comes across as either misogynist or naive. Hopefully the latter.
-
I don't know whether you're a male or female member here. But I guess gender doesn't really matter if we can take a deeper look at how some women have expressed their views - I don't know whether or not that's unpleasant according to the indoctrination that you've received - on the issue.
Indoctrination!? What a pejorative attitude. Did it ever occur to you that I may have views that are all of my own.
What occurs to me at the moment is what Andrea Dworkin wrote in her influential book Intercourse, and let me quote:
The normal f^ck by a normal man is taken to be an act of invasion and ownership undertaken in a mode of predation.
What on earth is the point of writing 'f^ck'? It is obvious what you are writing and will be read exactly the same as an uncensored version will be, so why pretend you are not writing it? So if you are going to use it, use it properly, not in a weaselly way.
And no, Dworkin [and other similar folk] have certainly not 'indoctrinated' me in any way, shape or form. That's going too far in the other direction from Slobodan's stance, to the point where they possibly both end up being equally chauvinistic.