I dig Terry’s work. He makes compelling pictures without the aide of expensive cameras, film and retouching (not always of course) through a strong point of view and a connection to his subject.
-
« Home
-
Categories
A Photo Editor
Photography Director Rob Haggart
Comments 23
Terry’s work is certainly interesting and brings out a lot of amazing reactions, and I really dig it on that level. On another level I think its incredibly thin and completely selfish, considering he’s a portrait photographer; but I get that too (at least its role in the market) and acknowledge that its a very delicate line. We all have personal vision and its ignorant to ask or expect photographers not to bring their own issues and aesthetics into the exposure, but of course with my background in journalism I think a photographer should work harder to reveal their subjects, not themselves. (I don’t need to see Mr. Richardson’s dong again, thanks).
Speaking of people doing less with more, however… I always think of people like Gene Richards, one of my heroes. And speaking of dongs, Alec Soth (Niagra, for those who never noticed) also does a hell of a lot with very little in a different way.
Posted 21 Sep 2007 at 10:58 am ¶I did a post on my feelings towards Terry and his dong here
http://whatsthejackanory.blogspot.com/2007/08/answer-to-question.html
PE how do you feel about Jurgen Teller, Ryan McGinley, Wolfgang Tillmans or any of the other point and shooters out there
I am curious if you have ever hired Terry and how was the process working with him ?
Posted 21 Sep 2007 at 11:45 am ¶I’m a big Terry fan, but an even bigger Juergen Teller fan. I feel the grouping of Teller and Terry is inappropriate. Although, not surprisingly, I hear much more derision towards Teller due to his lack of faux-glamourization. Terry does glamourize but in a less expected manner. It works and is incredibly effective, and quite sophisticated, really. The whole “point and shoot” idea is coincidental, although it does have meaning in both of their respective work - it’s just that the meaning is different. Teller’s subject manner is generally more conservative then Terry’s, but the treatment is more disturbing to the glamourous-fantasy-seeking eye. Personally, I think that real beauty has to be direct and honest, but I’m in my early thrities and am a product of the Teller/Terry 90s reign. Oh, and I recently starting obsessing over Araki. Holy cow!
Posted 21 Sep 2007 at 12:33 pm ¶I love that this style of photography exists and think it was perfect to match Lindsay Lohan and Terry Richardson for a portrait session.
I know someone who worked with Terry recently and will get a full report posted.
Posted 21 Sep 2007 at 12:55 pm ¶What’s wrong with expensive cameras? I just got into Leica and let em tell you , they are worth every penny!
Posted 21 Sep 2007 at 2:23 pm ¶I shoot Leica as well. Teller and Terry both use Contax G cameras (Terry uses others as well) which is on a similar level of performance. The low tech exterior of their work has nothing to do with the cameras themselves, but the lighting.
Posted 21 Sep 2007 at 2:44 pm ¶Here’s another post I did last month extolling the merits of a Teller fashion spread in W and how I feel he stacks up against Richardson
http://whatsthejackanory.blogspot.com/2007/08/magazine-under-review-w-0907.html
Posted 21 Sep 2007 at 3:30 pm ¶Andrew, I think I’m going to be spending some time on your blog. I love what you’ve written on Teller, and I really like your entry on Bob Richardson.
I love the Laura Dern story, and not just because I love Laura Dern (watched Inland Empire four times so far). Anyone remeber the Venezia story Teller shot for the Feb 07 issue of W? Definitely one of my favorite editorials I can remember.
Posted 21 Sep 2007 at 3:40 pm ¶Ooh my favourite subject….
Is the Teller/Richardson style not just the Emperors New Clothes? Art sh*te for the sake of it?
The more people laud them with praise (because that’s what you are supposed to do right - to be ‘cool’) the more others hire them.
They’re not photographers - they’re snake oil salesmen.
My 6 yearo old could do the same with a point and shoot.
Pretentious rubbish of the highest order.
Posted 22 Sep 2007 at 9:53 am ¶I know that the hip, cool, “Chase Jarvis” thing to do is to have YouTube videos on your website, of yourself shooting photo sessions, but like that old saying of “Some things you shouldn’t see being made — laws, and sausage”, I’d almost add “watching photo sessions” to the list.
While it’s always curious to see how other photographers work, and I always think they’ll have some secret sauce up their sleeve, in the form of some crazy lighting scheme, or some way that they bond with the subject, it’s amazing how most every photo session looks the same, on video. (And sometimes they can look borderline silly).
And to see him holding that little camera, and see them just slap that mirror on the floor, and see that same-old “pose face” on the model, and the silly crawling, well, to me, it just somehow loses some of the allure.
I love his finished images, for the most part, but after seeing this video, I think it’s better to see ONLY the finished image. Like in The Wizard of Oz, sometimes, it’s better to keep some thing behind the curtain, out of sight of the public. Sometimes, less truly is more.
Just one opinion.
Posted 22 Sep 2007 at 11:38 am ¶Tomas if your 6 year old can convince Mrs. Lohan to slink across a mirror as a visual metaphor to cocaine use you should put him to work immediately. If it’s so easy why not do it and become rich and famous yourself.
Mark, I find these videos interesting when famous people are the subject but otherwise agree with your assessment of the value to the photo community. Video taping your catalog shoot is akin to Mr. Richards shooting his dick.
Posted 22 Sep 2007 at 8:09 pm ¶“If it’s so easy why not do it and become rich and famous yourself.”
Do you really not think any professional worth their salt couldn’t reproduce the same scene in a New York minute? Its not exactly technically hard to point a point and shoot is it.
But getting the “celeb” that’s 99% of the photo sorted. And that’s all about
connections. This industry is all about who you know not what you can do.
That’s why talentless Teller and Richardson get on.
Create a ‘hype’ for yourself and get people thinking your the next best thing because ‘its so bad it must be good/cool’ and then editors are falling over themselves to hire you - because their competition used you so you must be good.
Its a self-perpetuating myth.
Its certainly not photography.
Posted 23 Sep 2007 at 4:45 am ¶Tomas,
I’m sure you would agree that the history of photography, in general, has revealed a plethora of exploratory methods of artistic creativity involving all sorts of ways of seeing and capturing imagery. In all honesty – aside from photo illustrations- would we really like to see a “standardization” of sorts that would define what constitutes professional photography based on the cameras that are used?
At the end of the day, for most of us, it all boils down to a matter of personal taste. In the fashion/luxury goods industry as well as the editorial magazine field, it’s a matter of business and taste; that’s where the Terry Richardson aesthetic really comes in to play. How or why it came to this point really doesn’t matter. Photographers quite often undergo an artistic metamorphosis and Mr. Richardson is no exception. We must not forget that Terry was a well accomplished photographer long before his “twig and berries” gained fame among the photo-book literati.
I met him about 13-years ago in the east village when he debuted a short 16mm black and white film/music video that he shot and produced for my friend’s band, which was quite good. Even then, elements of his current style were painfully evident. He spoke with me, with expert knowledge, of 8mm-16mm film stocks and shared information and techniques used in making the film; even offering the names and places of labs and film stock sources. The current point-and-shoot aesthetic is simply an extension of an earlier personal vision that he was successfully able to franchise.
Keith Green
Posted 23 Sep 2007 at 8:36 am ¶Great post, Keith. Totally agree.
And did you see this:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070921/tc_nm/walmart_apple_ramones_dc_2
Posted 23 Sep 2007 at 8:51 am ¶Hey Mark,
Yeah, I saw that.
It never ends with that lot and there’s more to come.
I’ll be flying down to Florida next month to photograph Dee Dee’s ex-wife, Vera Ramone. She’s currently writing a memoir that is gaining a lot of interest. Possibly film.
All the best,
Posted 23 Sep 2007 at 9:03 am ¶Keith Green
Tomas,
Any monkey can learn lighting ratios and purchase production value. Very few can make interesting photos with a strong point of view. There’s no hoax with Teller and Richardson. It’s not hype.
Posted 23 Sep 2007 at 10:26 am ¶What kind of camera is Richardson using at the shot?
Posted 27 Sep 2007 at 5:24 am ¶contax g2 (hardly a point and shoot) and a yashica t4.
Posted 27 Sep 2007 at 7:42 am ¶Hey!…I Googled for 8mm film, but found your page about Terry Richardson…and have to say thanks. nice read.
Posted 31 Oct 2007 at 2:59 pm ¶Hi there…I Googled for laura dern, but found your page about Terry Richardson…and have to say thanks. nice read.
Posted 01 Nov 2007 at 2:08 pm ¶Hello…I Googled for pictures of laura dern, but found your page about Terry Richardson…and have to say thanks. nice read.
Posted 01 Nov 2007 at 6:11 pm ¶Tomas Davidson: has his view but I feel he has no idea what he is talking about. The form, theme, colour, energy and classic composition in Terry’s work is fantastic. Not to say the things it makes the viewer feel!
Keep doing the geek talk and buy the best gear you can. Take great meter readings and keep every detail in the higlights etc etc…etc… Be more perfect!
Well, you cant put soul into an image with technique and you hate that cos you do not know how they do what they do.
It drives you nuts!
LOL
Posted 07 Jul 2008 at 1:18 am ¶Funny that’s it’s all men commenting here, mostly positively, about their work. As a woman, I find both Teller and Richardson to be misogynistic and exploitative, and I find nothing edgy or avant-garde about their photos. It’s typical quasi-pornographic 70s-style voyeur shooting. It certainly does NOT make me want to purchase Marc Jacobs clothing.
Posted 11 Jul 2008 at 3:07 am ¶Post a Comment