October 4, 2013 at 1:55 pm #13933
Just saw these photos of Miley Cyrus posted on Huffpost Celebrity’s website. NSFW BTW! But they are just sooo awful! Red eye, harsh lighting, his reflection in some of the photos…etc…the list goes on and on. Here’s a link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/04/miley-cyrus-terry-richardson-nsfw-photos_n_4044074.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003
Oh and there’s more on his website! -> http://terrysdiary.com/October 4, 2013 at 2:20 pm #13935jessnaylor6Member
the one with his shoe reflection in her crotch is the best. I am also confused by his awful photos..October 4, 2013 at 2:41 pm #13936
it is considered a privilege to shoot with Terry Richardson. Evidently he’s incredibly skeevy. A friend of mine shot with him once and it was all very odd. I met him once. He was very pleasant. His work is hit or miss. The flash work is obviously intentional. The work is more about his subjects.October 4, 2013 at 5:33 pm #13945nesgranMember
Aside from the fact that the man has spectacular facial hair I would certainly think he knows what he is doing. You can tell from those photos that he has a fantastic interaction with his subjects. Obviously hard light is difficult be he is pulling it off. A lot of his shots make no sense at all I can’t quite see the point of them on their own but going through what appears to his mad creation that is his blog it seems to make more sense about him rather than his subjects. For his subjects the style works I think. He’s also quite clearly competent when it comes to other styles than hard light from slightly aboveOctober 4, 2013 at 5:43 pm #13949
whoops, meant to post this here. I’m getting my discussions confused:October 4, 2013 at 5:46 pm #13950
I’m sorry, I know he’s famous and has worked with a lot of famous people but those photos are total crap. There’s not even anything artistic about them. They’re not even so bad they’re good. Come on, red eye? Out of focus? His shoe in the reflection between her legs? If any of us had produced work like that and put our name on it we’d be on the front page of this website.October 4, 2013 at 5:50 pm #13951
Thanks for that link ebi….somehow I’m not surprised.October 4, 2013 at 6:09 pm #13954
Quick google and I found out way more than I ever wanted to know about the guy. He’s known for abusing his young models sexually…and taking photographs of it! So, as it turns out, he’s the worst kind of fauxtog.October 4, 2013 at 9:00 pm #13968IHFMember
Terry reminds me of a fauxtog defender that came here once to yell at all of us. She said something like “yeah, what if what you call fauxtography is actually something way ahead of its time, and becomes in demand and is actually in style”.
Even though she was blowing hot air, and didn’t know what she was talking about, her comment made me think. Made me think of Terry, (and other questionable famous pros work), how me and my teen daughter like to make fauxtography on purpose quite often, how much I love useless moments fauxtography https://www.facebook.com/uselessmoments and wish I was handy with PS so I could create some of these types of images for family/friends and have lots of laughs over them (yes! I would even finish them and display them). And as a consumer I would hire someone who could do fauxtography like that. In fact, my daughter wants to find someone that will shoot her senior pictures in this similar fashion.
With all that said… There still has to be consistency, and purposeful intent to create good “fauxtography” that works. Am I a fan of Terry? Ummmmm no, not at all, and I’d never want to be shot by him (not that he’d ever want to photograph me) but, you have to admit, the consistency and intent is there, wether we agree or like it or not. ( I think it’s cop out garbage, rolled up with a lot of hype) , but you can recognize a Terry Richardson photograph from a mile away when you see oneOctober 5, 2013 at 3:47 am #13971JustAndyMember
I don’t know… I’m on the fence about this. I can see your point, but I also am familiar and acknowledge the similar sentiments issued forth against artists like Lee Friedlander, William Eggleston, Edwynn Houk or even the likes of Picasso or Pollock… If you want to use his personal failings (true or false) against him that is fine, but I don’t really know how that should influence your opinion of his work – it hasn’t kept people away from Roman Polanski’s movies. Regardless he is able to pull something from his subjects that I can’t…October 5, 2013 at 4:18 am #13973nesgranMember
The man himself sounds like an utter sleaze but think about what kind of style of photography works when you are shooting Lindsay Lohan at a party or Miley Cyrus trying to create her new image? I honestly can’t think of something that works better.October 5, 2013 at 7:47 am #13974
Nope, not buying it, he’s a sleaze bag. And that is crap photography. If he wasn’t famous for being a sleaze bag getting his jollies from young girls I might think differently. Might…but probably not.
He’s using photography and his fame for photographing high profile people for high profile magazines to seduce young girls into getting naked and doing sexual favours for him. (I cleaned that up as best I could) In my opinion this makes him the worst kind of ‘fauxtog’ there is.
I honestly don’t understand why this doesn’t upset people.October 5, 2013 at 11:58 am #13975
well, i don’t think he’s actually forced himself on to anyone, but he’s done some inappropriate things. Some magazines won’t work with him anymore for it. Some models probably wouldn’t either. Kate Upton seems to love him. His photography isn’t crap though. He has a very specific style so you can really tell his photos from a mile away. I remember the first time I saw the Belvedere campaign, I was like “Oh, that’s Terry Richardson”. It’s not crap, it’s just harsh and intimidating. It challenges social conventions. Which kind of makes it art…sorry to say.
I don’t like the Miley Cyrus photos he took, but that’s because I cannot fucking stand Miley Cyrus, and this image change isn’t the least bit subtle and is unbelievably fake.October 5, 2013 at 3:08 pm #13976
Yes, he’s done some good photography…but not all his work is good. And those images of Miley are examples of crap photography, I don’t care what the photographer’s name is. Just because you are world renowned for producing famous photos of famous people for famous magazines (and videos too) doesn’t mean that they can’t produce crap. This is a fine example.
It doesn’t take much of a google search to turn up horror stories of model’s and MUA’s experiences with him. Try googling ‘the old terry richardson’. Warning, NSFW. Shocking images of him with many different models in many different sexual situations. He crosses the line. You’re not suppose to get naked with your models and preform sexual acts with them. A lot of those girls look so young too. It disturbs me that people idolize him so much. I could never respect someone like him as a photographer.October 5, 2013 at 10:35 pm #13982JustAndyMember
“You’re not suppose to get naked with your models and preform sexual acts with them. A lot of those girls look so young too. It disturbs me that people idolize him so much. I could never respect someone like him as a photographer.”
Well, ok, I don’t disagree with your assertion; but please note your problem is more with him than whether or not he is a “Fauxtog”. Just know the difference between your assertion of his work vs opinion of the man… Not trying to be a dick, just pointing out how one doesn’t particularly have anything to do with the other….
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.