Aw, that was nice. Moving on:Sometimes, Terry Richardson includes himself in the photo. Sometimes, the model's face isn't even there, but I won't describe the bloody details. And it's his personality (signature tattoos, signature facial hair, etc.) that gets the spotlight while all the girl has representing her personality is her ladyparts.
I think we're supposed to find significance in how ironic and funny it is, because, Ha-ha! There's that Crazy Dude Terry with his signature glasses and flannel and perviness again! Ha-ha! That Terry, what a Crazy Dude, with his signature glasses and flannel and perviness! Again! He's become this weird cultural icon whose "thing" it is is to be a perv. In these kinds of photos where he's included, he's the real model, and the girl who was hired is merely his prop, his trophy, a nameless, faceless girl that accentuates Crazy Dude Terry's image but doesn't get an image of her own.
Moving on, when Richardson shoots men with women, the photos sometimes end up looking like this. In case you couldn't tell, the girl is naked and oily and performing on the guy and the guy is wearing a suit and holding a cigar and beer. Guy=smart, business! Girl=naked, and doing stuff to the guy! Also, MAKE ME A SANDWICH, DAMMIT. Here's an example of the same thing, and here is one more, and here is one that even goes into gender stereotypes (and not even in an intelligent, satiric way that makes a point of how stupid they are.) Meet Man, distinguished in his business suit, reading up on current events because he's so smart; and Chick, who is naked and performing a stereotypical housewife chore. While naked! DUDE FANTASY!
Oh, and way to TOTALLY miss the point of the original John & Yoko portrait. Seriously? WHY IS THE GIRL ALWAYS NAKED!
And yeah, I know that it was said that Richardson sometimes gets naked and lets the girl take pictures of him before they let him take nude pictures of them. But this isn't him being fair, it's a strategy. It's manipulative, it's scary, and the last thing someone wants when they feel pressured into doing anything sexual is for the other person to suddenly be wearing nothing but tattoos. It's supposed to, y'know, relax everyone, but there's a difference between putting on a smooth jazz album while preparing some nice ginseng teas and, um, being naked, all of a sudden, in an uncomfortable person's face. Of course, I can't decide Richardson's motives for him, but I might guess that after he gets naked for the girl, the girl is supposed to feel like she owes him something, even though she never asked him to get naked, but, you know, I might be overthinking things.
I'm not against nudity in photography, but with Richardson, it seems to be only for shock value (or for his own pleasure, or "aesthetic," or something.) The body isn't exhibited intelligently, there is no commentary; it's just there and I think we're supposed to think it's really edgy. Ha-ha, there's that Crazy Dude Terry again!
Now, I'm not implying that he harassed anyone for some of these photos I've linked to above, because I can't assume that. Actually, I received an email from the woman he photographed for The Journal, letting me know she fully consented to the photos, and a friend of hers emailed me as well and told me she was 21 or 22 at the time of the pictures. So, again, this is just looking at these photos and breaking them down into the message they give people. (And don't give me "Shouldn't you expect that kind of behavior from him then if these are his photos?" because if you expect that from someone then there is something really WRONG about the way that someone does their job.)
On another note, I love all these magazines that claim to give out pro-women (but not feminist, because that's a scary word!) messages yet publish photos from a misogynist who takes advantage of women. Do not misinterpret that as a Blogger vs. Magazine thing. Nor should you interpret this whole thing as a Tavi vs. Terry Richardson thing. I'm not writing all this because I want to embarrass him in an immature, spiteful, gym locker room prank kind of way. I'm writing it because it has to be written about and I want other people to write about it because he has to know that next time he tries anything along those lines, people will write about it. Then maybe he will stop doing it.
EDIT: To clarify, I'm not trying to imply that any of these photos has a story behind it that is along the lines of the unfortunate stories we've already heard. I'm not trying to imply that any of the models were forced into it, either -- in the end, given that they enjoyed the shoot, they had a fun time and made money, so more power to 'em. Nor am I trying to blame any of the models for being anti-feminist by participating in these photos. I understand that sexual liberation for women is very feminist, and if modeling in any of these photos made a woman feel liberated, that's actually really great. But here we are looking at what the photograph itself is saying, regardless of the story behind it. ~Fin~.
0 comments:
Post a Comment