BMI Studio wrote:
I'm guessing the general public neither knows who he is or anything about his deviant sexual behavior. If they did, he may not be as successful as a photographer. Public outrage has shown to affect how corporate America conducts business. But because his photos tend to appear with little or no fanfare outside the photography and fashion industries, the liberal minds within those industries will continue to defend him and his behavior.

The public in general could care less about who shot whom with what. They just want to see good images. As for the deviant behaviour..thats all relative and unproven. If anyone truly had an issue with it he would have been charged and tried long ago..keep it in perspective.

Illuminate wrote:
As for the deviant behaviour..thats all relative and unproven. If anyone truly had an issue with it he would have been charged and tried long ago..keep it in perspective.

Right... I am sure many new models doing their first cover shoot for a major magazine would run out of a shoot screaming because he whips it out.  None of them have been willing to risk their dreams and careers by pursuing legal action.  Its the problem with sexual harassment cases in general; just to keep it in perspective

AJScalzitti wrote:

Right... I am sure many new models doing their first cover shoot for a major magazine would run out of a shoot screaming because he whips it out.  None of them have been willing to risk their dreams and careers by pursuing legal action.  Its the problem with sexual harassment cases in general; just to keep it in perspective

Dumbest thing I have ever heard. You actually think reporting someone to the police would hurt a new models career....I know 5 models TODAY who reported sexual assaults to law enforcement...and guess what..the world still spins.

New Art Photo wrote:
Good photographer or not, he seems to engage in some pretty despicable conduct with vulnerable young models.  I can't imagine anyone admiring that.

Can you be more specific? What have you seen him do?

Illuminate wrote:

Dumbest thing I have ever heard. You actually think reporting someone to the police would hurt a new models career....I know 5 models TODAY who reported sexual assaults to law enforcement...and guess what..the world still spins.

Whether it hurts their career or not is irrelevant, it's whether they believe that it will hurt their career that matters.

Mark Laubenheimer wrote:

and roman polanski is not a filmmaker.  ha.

It's not fair to compare Terry Richardson to Roman Polanski.

While Roman Polanski is a fine film maker he had sex with a minor.

Terry Richardson is a randy clown, but has his fun and games with
grownups.

I'd say that puts Polanski in the no class category and Terry in well let's say "a class of his own".

Benjamin Kanarek wrote:

Are you kidding??? Do you know anything about Terry Richardson and his pedigree. If he was so inclined he could shoot the most elaborate and complex productions. He was brought up in photography through his father Bob Richardson, a highly accomplished Fashion Photographer. He is a photographer who understands the importance of marketing, which has become in it's own right an art form of it's own, necessary for one to survive in the Biz today.

http://www.benjaminkanarekblog.com/2011 … ng-talent/

In looking at your work, "me thinks thou protesteth too much..."

now now, me thinks it best to watch out for the proverbial doorstep.

Illuminate wrote:

Dumbest thing I have ever heard. You actually think reporting someone to the police would hurt a new models career....I know 5 models TODAY who reported sexual assaults to law enforcement...and guess what..the world still spins.

Now that is one of the dumbest things i have ever heard.  It doesn't matter if it will or not if the model feels she has to or that she will be blacklisted by him if she does not perform as told.  Perhaps you simpy don't understand how sexual harassment works and if you don't think it's hurt people's careers (on both sides) you must not get out much.  Several models have come out and made these claims and there was an interview (I think in Jezebel) where a model said that she didn't report it because she thought it would kill her career.  She believed he would have kicked her off the set and she would loose her chance at a vogue cover.

Efan Bruder wrote:
Honestly I could give a shit about TR. He's making shit tons of money? Good for him.

The fact that he seems to be going more for reactions than quality photographs makes me think he's moved over into the performance artist category.

Who said he doesn't produce quality photographs? You're welcome to your opinion but that doesn't make it right in any way. Like any art (music, painting and so on) there's people who get your art and people who don't.

But the thing which will completely kill your argument is that a photographer is someone who takes photographs. Nothing more. He takes photographers therefore he's a photographer.

Efan Bruder wrote:
This is an idea that recently popped into my head:

Terry Richardson isn't a photographer.  He's a performance artist seeing how much crap people will put up with from someone calling himself a photographer (and having a somewhat famous father in the photo business).

Discuss.

No judgement on his work...but he has as much right to be called a photographer as anyone on here...

.....And can you find something a bit more interesting, (new?) to discuss than Terry Richardson?

AJScalzitti wrote:
He knows how to shoot and shoot well if you look back on his work, but people keep paying him for that crap he has done recently.   Now as far as being a sexual predator, that is totally different despite what people think here; On MM it appears as only people claiming to photographers can be sexual predators.

Good one, I too, can agree here..

Efan Bruder wrote:
This is an idea that recently popped into my head:

Terry Richardson isn't a photographer.  He's a performance artist seeing how much crap people will put up with from someone calling himself a photographer (and having a somewhat famous father in the photo business).

Discuss.

This is what drives me crazy about MM and all the rules.  It is ok for you to blast Terry Richard's work, but unwelcome crits are grounds for the BRIG.


I guess the old adage about glass houses can be fitting

Efan Bruder wrote:
This is an idea that recently popped into my head:

Terry Richardson isn't a photographer.  He's a performance artist seeing how much crap people will put up with from someone calling himself a photographer (and having a somewhat famous father in the photo business).

Discuss.

Why concern (especially negatively) yourself with a mega-successful man who has no direct relevance to your own everyday practice of your profession/craft?

Revenge Photography wrote:
I don't know the man and as far as I know he isn't shit talking about me. So I'll show him the same respect.

+1

Efan Bruder wrote:
This is an idea that recently popped into my head:

Terry Richardson isn't a photographer.  He's a performance artist seeing how much crap people will put up with from someone calling himself a photographer (and having a somewhat famous father in the photo business).

Discuss.

Terry Richardson IS a photographer (he takes pictures with a camera),
Terry Richardson is a PROFESSIONAL photographer (he gets paid for taking pictures).

Just because you don't like his style doesn't mean he isn't a photographer.

Crap? Not sure how you are defining that. Aesthetics are a taste. Expand yours and you'll sleep better

Efan Bruder wrote:
This is an idea that recently popped into my head:

Terry Richardson isn't a photographer.  He's a performance artist seeing how much crap people will put up with from someone calling himself a photographer (and having a somewhat famous father in the photo business).

Discuss.

That's how I think of him. He is a bullshit artist mocking the fashion and the art world. Seeing how far he can push his BS. I think there will be a "gotcha" part in his act where he will come out and ridicule those who thought he was a photographer.

AJScalzitti wrote:
Now that is one of the dumbest things i have ever heard.  It doesn't matter if it will or not if the model feels she has to or that she will be blacklisted by him if she does not perform as told.  Perhaps you simpy don't understand how sexual harassment works and if you don't think it's hurt people's careers (on both sides) you must not get out much.  Several models have come out and made these claims and there was an interview (I think in Jezebel) where a model said that she didn't report it because she thought it would kill her career.  She believed he would have kicked her off the set and she would loose her chance at a vogue cover.

I need to get out more? lol...ok buddy

The people that have made statements about the photographers "antics" chose to charge him by wire..or media. That doesn't make it true because every story has two sides. If ten people said your work was crap should we take them at their statement and presume it as fact? I bet you hope not.

We have a principle in law called due process, the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven. When one of those models goes to the police, files a complaint which results in a charge and then conviction the industry will know what's what.

Do you think anyone in the industry really believes that they won't get another job if they report they she has been sexually assaulted?

And just who in their right mind would give hand-jobs or blow-jobs so they could stay on set? For a magazine cover?? I'm sure there are lot's of models who might, but to turn around and complain about it later would have the same net effect.

Many photographers etc have gone through the legal system for the type of behavior you are discussing. In fact I know several well known ones right here in Toronto with on-going cases. Their accusers are still agency rep'ed and working frequently on various campaigns.

Fred Greissing wrote:

It's not fair to compare Terry Richardson to Roman Polanski.

While Roman Polanski is a fine film maker he had sex with a minor.

Terry Richardson is a randy clown, but has his fun and games with
grownups.

I'd say that puts Polanski in the no class category and Terry in well let's say "a class of his own".

i was merely separating business from pleasure.

same as R Kelly is a songwriter.....

Carlos Occidental wrote:
Pretty dumb.
Terry gets paid to take photographs.  Therefore, he is a photographer.

+1

-B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote:
Not keen on his current output, or his offstage antics, but the guy does know his way around a camera and... more importantly... he knows what pays the bills.




Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano
www.stefanobrunesci.com

are you certain? do you know the exact details of his finances?

-B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote:
Not keen on his current output, or his offstage antics, but the guy does know his way around a camera and... more importantly... he knows what pays the bills.




Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano
www.stefanobrunesci.com

ArtGlo wrote:
are you certain? do you know the exact details of his finances?

huh?  i'm pretty certain the companies that he works for pay him. i'm sure terry knows how to get the "money shot".

Michael McGowan wrote:
Perhaps the OP would have made some sense if the title was "not JUST a photographer." Obviously, he's a photographer. He takes pictures. He has them published. He's a photographer. He may be other things as well, but he's definitely a photographer.

+QFT

Benjamin Kanarek wrote:
Are you kidding??? Do you know anything about Terry Richardson and his pedigree. If he was so inclined he could shoot the most elaborate and complex productions. He was brought up in photography through his father Bob Richardson, a highly accomplished Fashion Photographer. He is a photographer who understands the importance of marketing, which has become in it's own right an art form of it's own, necessary for one to survive in the Biz today.

http://www.benjaminkanarekblog.com/2011 … ng-talent/

In looking at your work, "me thinks thou protesteth too much..."

Doesn't mean a thing he's called Terry and his fathers called Bob, following in his fathers foot steps is a hard act to follow.
Just because someones father was a great racing driver doesn't mean the son will become one too.

You don't have to be good just have a lot of good people around you example Lord Litchfield. Brilliant; art dir, assistant and models. Litchfield just pressed the shutter.

Efan Bruder wrote:
This is an idea that recently popped into my head:

Terry Richardson isn't a photographer.  He's a performance artist seeing how much crap people will put up with from someone calling himself a photographer (and having a somewhat famous father in the photo business).

Discuss.

No offense, but I bet he'd say the same of your work, if he'd ever even bother to look at it.

Don Garrett wrote:
Ya know, if I made as much money as he does, getting blow jobs, I wouldn't give a rat's ass what a handful of idiots on Model Mayhem thought of me. And I'm sure that is how he feels about it too, (if he is even aware that we exist) !
-Don

Nor does he have time for threads like this lol

End of the Road Studio wrote:
I don't know who he is???????

Glad I'm not the only one.

robb albrecht wrote:

Glad I'm not the only one.

Well he's not the Pope...and unless you follow fashion and celebrity portraits it's doubtful you will come across his name.

Then again I had a model in the studio today who was flipping through some concept images and asked who took a particular shot. I replied, Mario Testino. She looks at me with a blank stare and says "never heard of him". Yet her profile states that she has been modeling and walking runways for 4 years and is agency represented.