In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Tavi on Terry Richardson

Jill

Oh Tavi, I love you and want to adopt you (or at least hire you to dress me). Tavi, for the unfamiliar, is the Style Rookie, a 14-year-old fashion blogger who describes herself as a “dork that sits inside all day wearing awkward jackets and pretty hats.” She is, at first glance, entirely adorable. And at second glance, she is entirely brilliant and uncomfortably talented.

And she has some problems with Terry Richardson.

Terry Richardson, for the unfamiliar, is a fashion photographer whose aesthetic is, basically, naked chicks. Some number of those naked chicks actually did not really want to be naked, and have come forward to say that Richardson is actually really predatory. For his part, Richardson says, “At first, I’d just want to do a few nude shots, so I’d take off my clothes, too … I’d even give the camera to the model and get her to shoot me for a while. It’s about creating a vibe, getting people relaxed and excited. When that happens you can do anything. I don’t think I’m a sex addict, but I do have issues. Maybe it’s the psychological thing that I was a shy kid, and now I’m this powerful guy with his boner, dominating all these girls.”

Nice, right?

Tavi’s post links to a bunch of Terry’s photos, so click over there if you want to see them — the link to Tavi’s blog is safe for work, but the links to the photos are not. If you don’t actually want to look at Richardson’s shots, know that they’re basically variations on the same theme: Naked chick, often with a clothed dude.

Tavi writes:

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. Or, in this case, the spotlight is on the girl, but he still has to get in there somewhere, and make his “hey dudes, look what I got!” claim.

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.

When Terry isn’t in the photo, it’s usually a naked girl posing with a guy who is Doing Something, or at least dressed like he’s about to Do Something (he’s in a suit, or smoking a cigar, or whatever, which she’s… naked). He took the notorious do-over photo of Sean Lennon and one of his model girlfriends, which was meant to emulate the original John and Yoko Rolling Stone cover — and of course the woman was naked instead (NSFW). But even putting aside the constant lady-nudity in his photos — and like Tavi, I don’t have a problem with nudity, I just have a problem with how it’s done here — Richardson uses some questionable methods to prompt that nudity.

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.

Sounds about right.

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.

I’m glad girls like Tavi are the future of fashion.

H/T Kate.

18 thoughts on Tavi on Terry Richardson

  1. Tavi’s so right:

    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.

    Thanks for writing about it.

  2. She’s defending a difficult position and doing a pretty good job. The problem with Richardson isn’t nudity, it’s his misuse of his own power. She covered that pretty well in her previous blog post, and now she’s trying to explore how his power over the models he employs is expressed in his work.

    That’s a more difficult topic and I don’t agree with her 100%, but I certainly do agree that his fundamental misunderstanding of the Ono/Lennon portrait is a really good example of his failings as an artist.

  3. Actually, Eileen, I really don’t find it that difficult at all. What I find impressive is that she probably hasn’t read much in the way of feminist visual theory by the age of 13, and yet has done a remarkable job of intuiting so much that’s been painstakingly examined by people quite a bit senior to her in age and education via just her own gut and incredible intelligence.

  4. Her first Richardson post was on the subject of how people treat one another, which is simple (don’t exploit peope, especially those with less power than you). It was a slam dunk for her on a subject that needed to be addressed.

    The reason I think this is more difficult is because she has now entered into a discussion of aesthetics. She’s trying to define the line between celebration of bodies and freedom and… what Richardson does. Those lines? They’re hard to define. People in the Pure Art camp are entrenched, and it’s too easy for a careful analysis to be read as a prudery and dismissed. So… yeah, difficult, thorny, less clear. But Tavi does really good work in that direction.

    What I love most is how both posts, when read together, are kind of a one-two punch on the subject of Richardson. 1. He uses people in real life. 2. His work normalizes exploitation and power differentials that are not, in fact, the slightest bit revolutionary and are, instead, status quo.

    Game, set, match Tavi on a -yes -difficult subject.

  5. Wow, I can’t believe a 13 year old can analyze and write this well. She’s smarter than I was when I was, like, 20.

  6. Wow. Looking at this guy’s pictures, he is doing such a Helmut Newton rip-off, it’s absurd.

    Helmut Newton did all of these sexist things before him. Except that (usually) the photography (lining up of shot, etc.) was better. Same awesome “female is naked and totally passive” thing, though. And of course, though Newton claimed “I’m not looking for an ideal body type,” he only ever used super models for his shoots (unless he was doing photos of a female celebrity, who didn’t always fit in the mold). He also had awesome quantities of violence against women depicted in his photos. *froth*

    I don’t have a problem with naked women in photography. Nothing wrong with that at all. But for crying out loud, if they’re going to be naked, at least make them active characters, rather than props. Jeez!

    Anyway, again, Terry Richardson seems like a less skilled (in terms of lighting and shot set-up), but just as sexist version of Newton. Whee.

  7. 1. Jesus, she’s 13 and she can write like that? *weeps in jealousy*

    2. Wow. Ugly American Apparel ad-esque photos of some hipster positioning himself around women’s naughty bits. MY GOD, WHAT A BRILLIANT PHOTOGRAPHER. TRULY, HE HAS CHANGED THE GAME. What the fuck is wrong with these toolbag hacks? Ugh.

  8. Oh wow, thanks so much, Jill! Both for the complimentary words and for, as I said in my last paragraph, talking about it.

  10. Yeah, I would kill to be able to write that well at 14. Or, you know, today at 23.

  11. 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!

    It seems to be an unsettling variation on boys will be boys, and oh, everyone knows that creepy dude at the office is just like that, and Tom Ford’s I’m not threatening, I’m gay schtick. That somehow creepiness becomes a trope, a signature, and a way of minimizing is incredibly depressing.

  12. I’m not sure if this was meant for effect, in a piece about photographs where the men are shown as people and the women are shown as props, but

    “He took the notorious do-over photo of Sean Lennon and one of his model girlfriends”

    made me really uncomfortable because she didn’t even get a name. Her name was Kemp Muhl I believe, though I just looked that up.

  13. Eileen, I still say actually no. I think anyone with a reasonable amount of education in aesthetics would always find Pure Art arguments pretty silly. It’s art connoisseur wanna be logic- what the hell would Pure Art be anyway? But, as I said, it’s damn impressive that she’s able to intuit so much without, I’m guessing, much exposure to theory.

  14. I think suggesting that she “intuits” rather than thinks and analyzes, and all of the Wow talk about how young she is sounds patronizing. She doesn’t intuit any more than I do. She has a rigorous mind and a sharp writing style. She deals with thorny subject matter and applies the same kind of critical thinking skills we all do. The focus on her age, and the othering of her because of her age, is dismaying on progressive forums.

  15. Tavi,

    I just read both your blog posts having to do with the asshole, and they’re a breath of fresh air (though the saying isn’t). You’re also really witty and funny, which is always great. Like the others are saying here: you’re really talented and awesome. Go girl!

  16. Eileen, I repeatedly emphasized the unlikeliness of her exposure to theory. It’s not terribly complicated: even genius level minds bounce off of one another. There’s nothing remotely dismissive about acknowledging that much. I personally place tremendous value on intuition; you could use another term perhaps, but the point remains, it’s when you’re out there on your own forming a point, and it’s an impressive place to be.

  17. Part of what amazed me about the images Tavi linked to was how abysmally crappy the photography was — it makes the “but it’s art” people sound utterly silly. He’s using the predation of the porn industry to produce images pretty much the same as the porn industry does, so that pretty much tells you what he is.

Comments are currently closed.