Chris Curnutt wrote:

Erick Prince wrote:
I would flame you but it appears you already know how ridiculous your claim is as you have opened the door for us to flame. lol

What I know is tacky sells, as evidenced in that GQ cover , there is a huge market for it and many if not most people have bad taste.  Bad taste sells and probably most men think that photo is "hot", they probably think Girls Gone Wild is art.  Thus flame me if you want :-)  Pick up a GQ if you question my claim.  That is all the evidence i need to back it up. 

Oh they occasionally do tasty stuff, but more often than not it is a cartoonish portrayal of a woman, the sort of thing I would expect from someone terribly sexually frustrated or just sexually stunted person (TR is a perfect example) or worse.   Then pick up a copy of Esquire and compare the two styles of how woman are portrayed and photographed.  Ignore or flame me, but look at the evidence of what I am describing.  I might be ridiculous, but my point is supported by evidence which is not ridiculous.

I'm a newbie when it comes to portrait photography, but I'm pretty familiar with Hollywood....I feel bad if Kate Upton ever had thoughts of being an actress-- because no one out here will respect her after images like this appear.
And I blame Terry Richardson and GQ for that.

StevenJermaine wrote:
Funny, people are saying he's not a photographer. I bought a Harper's bazaar magazine in the airport sunday, and guess who shot the cover, Terry Richardson, and the editorial inside was amazing. He shot Dean Johnson for them and here are some of the images from the editorial.

He gets work and He does good work... Leave him be.

1

and his lastest on British Vogue with Lindsey Wixson is pretty amazing. Yes, he is a character, and he knows it, but he's pretty talented, imho.

http://visionlosangeles.com/vision-la-l … ichardson/

New Art Photo wrote:

Chris Curnutt wrote:

Erick Prince wrote:
I would flame you but it appears you already know how ridiculous your claim is as you have opened the door for us to flame. lol

What I know is tacky sells, as evidenced in that GQ cover , there is a huge market for it and many if not most people have bad taste.  Bad taste sells and probably most men think that photo is "hot", they probably think Girls Gone Wild is art.  Thus flame me if you want :-)  Pick up a GQ if you question my claim.  That is all the evidence i need to back it up. 

Oh they occasionally do tasty stuff, but more often than not it is a cartoonish portrayal of a woman, the sort of thing I would expect from someone terribly sexually frustrated or just sexually stunted person (TR is a perfect example) or worse.   Then pick up a copy of Esquire and compare the two styles of how woman are portrayed and photographed.  Ignore or flame me, but look at the evidence of what I am describing.  I might be ridiculous, but my point is supported by evidence which is not ridiculous.

I'm a newbie when it comes to portrait photography, but I'm pretty familiar with Hollywood....I feel bad if Kate Upton ever had thoughts of being an actress-- because no one out here will respect her after images like this appear.
And I blame Terry Richardson and GQ for that.

Then you are also a newbie to the way the world works where models are concerned. The only reasons we know who Upton is are staring you right in the face. The two "girls & smile" is what she is selling and that's what Hollywood scouts for. Those pictures are tame compared to what other FAMOUS people have done to build their profile awareness.

New Art Photo wrote:

Chris Curnutt wrote:

Erick Prince wrote:
I would flame you but it appears you already know how ridiculous your claim is as you have opened the door for us to flame. lol

What I know is tacky sells, as evidenced in that GQ cover , there is a huge market for it and many if not most people have bad taste.  Bad taste sells and probably most men think that photo is "hot", they probably think Girls Gone Wild is art.  Thus flame me if you want :-)  Pick up a GQ if you question my claim.  That is all the evidence i need to back it up. 

Oh they occasionally do tasty stuff, but more often than not it is a cartoonish portrayal of a woman, the sort of thing I would expect from someone terribly sexually frustrated or just sexually stunted person (TR is a perfect example) or worse.   Then pick up a copy of Esquire and compare the two styles of how woman are portrayed and photographed.  Ignore or flame me, but look at the evidence of what I am describing.  I might be ridiculous, but my point is supported by evidence which is not ridiculous.

I'm a newbie when it comes to portrait photography, but I'm pretty familiar with Hollywood....I feel bad if Kate Upton ever had thoughts of being an actress-- because no one out here will respect her after images like this appear.
And I blame Terry Richardson and GQ for that.

Hollywood eats up crap, tasteless and otherwise.  Most people will dig that tacky photo, it won't hurt her or TR in the least.  But if you had a chance to shoot her, would you stick a frozen phallus in her mouth and call it done?  I mean is that the best someone can do with a model like that?  But again we're talking about GQ and they have a fondness for making women look positively idiotic. My theory is they either hate women or they're horny, bitter virgins.

But tacky does indeed sell.  Just look how successful the Girls Gone Wild franchise is.

Tygeria Drayton wrote:
Whatever he is he can shoot me anyday anytime I love the photos I see.

He is a very talented photographer indeed.

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 doesn't even deserve a comment/discussion. Are you a fucking idiot? His dad may have been famous, but he has made a name for himself.. ohhh jealousy. Such an ugly thing.

Chris Curnutt wrote:

He is a very talented photographer indeed.

He is indeed. And I just love how the meagre but big-mouthed ' talents ' on this site just don't get the picture ( in more ways than one ).

Terry Richardson isn't a photographer

Well.. neither am I, but that doesn't stop me from picking up a camera and shooting those that are willing.. and hell.. sometimes even I get paid also.

_MAC_ wrote:

This doesn't even deserve a comment/discussion. Are you a fucking idiot? His dad may have been famous, but he has made a name for himself.. ohhh jealousy. Such an ugly thing.

Yeah, I'm jealous too... I wish models would fuck me too for pictures...

Tygeria Drayton wrote:
Whatever he is he can shoot me anyday anytime I love the photos I see.

Most models here wouldn't fulfill the requirements needed to shoot with him anyway.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2004/oct … graphy.art

Yan Tan Tethera wrote:

He is indeed. And I just love how the meagre but big-mouthed ' talents ' on this site just don't get the picture ( in more ways than one ).

Well he has an unsavory reputation with models, so many people have a knee jerk reaction because they don't see beyond his sexual weirdness.  That sort of thing also presents photographers in a bad light.  But the notion he is not a photographer is demonstrably idiotic.

Not to change the subject, but here's a question, I wonder how many people know who Bob Richardson is?  I wonder how many people have been influenced by him and don't even know it.

New Art Photo wrote:

Fernando L Pacheco wrote:


This photo may sell magazines-- But will it help Kate Upton's career? He makes her look like a dim bulb.  My guess is that comes from his own distorted view of women... (Personal opinion)

Ya...she is really suffering for work: http://treatsmagazine.com/2012/06/the-t … ate-upton/

Illuminate wrote:

Well that's a matter of interpretation and taste. I don't like american made cars, but many people do and they get the job done.

His style by the way: snapshot aesthetic

Just remembered the term used to describe it.

LOL @ snapshot aesthetic

"Aesthetics is a branch of philosophy dealing with the nature of beauty, art, and taste, with the creation and appreciation of beauty."

That definition doesn't fit what Terry does.

How about:
austere snapshot grotesque

George Ruge wrote:
This thing is still running??

Jealous bunch of ninnies!! He makes more $$$$ than you, he gets more, and higher quality nookie than you, so who is it that sucks!!:-)))

I had just noticed that this thread was STILL raging, and was about to type in a single word - Jealousy - after reading a few 'new' posts, then I came upon yours. Really, that is just about all that has to be said - jealousy ! Doesn't anyone here have anything better to do than to wait for the next Terry Richardson thread, so they can puff themselves up ? It's time to give it a rest, (and, maybe be concerned with your own photography, who knows, maybe some will attain some fame !).
-Don
P.S. One thing that is common to most, if not all of those who reach worldwide fame, is that they happily do their own thing, and NEVER worry about what those on Model Mayhem think of them, or bother to express negativity about someone else in the Model Mayhem forum ! (hint: I'm giving way too much importance to this forum).

Smedley Whiplash wrote:

LOL @ snapshot aesthetic

"Aesthetics is a branch of philosophy dealing with the nature of beauty, art, and taste, with the creation and appreciation of beauty."

That definition doesn't fit what Terry does.

How about:
austere snapshot grotesque

Well that's the beauty of the world..everyone has an opinion, wrong or right ;-)

When you sell an image for a 5K print license let me know.

Image Studios wrote:
I did not know who he was till I started reading this post. I found it amusing because I looked up photographers for Pirelli Calendar. I had seen the making of video and thought the photographer was the worst pervert I had seen. He was a pervert on the video and sure makes photographers look bad as far as behavior on set goes. I find it disgusting that any photographer would give him any credit. I would not give a thief a good word because he stole a lot of money and did not get successfully prosecuted.

He reminds me of all the other that are protected.
Pedophile priest
Corrupt Cops
Corrupt & perverted politicians

All protected by we stand behind our own, Code of Silence, I am not a rat. All those who protect their own instead of doing what is right.

All the good priest, Policemen and politicians get the bad end of the few who they seem to protect.

If people would not protect their own but clean their own house instead it would be a much better world.

The Chinese believe that people who have a lot of money should be well respected. Now they have people who put poison in baby formula to make more money and be respected. It did not work out well for them.

Can't tell if trolling...