My take on the debate

Recently, the Style Rookie, Tavi Gevinson, posted some interesting commentary about Terry Richardson`s work. These posts provoked an interesting debate that questionned the boundaries of morality, sex, feminism, art, professionalism, consumer responsibility and corporate ethics.( I highly suggest you read them. Here and here.) This is my two cents.

I have never liked Richardson’s work. It has nothing to do with his over-sexualized imagery. Frankly, I think his work is boring. C’est du déjà vu. Yet, this is my subjective opinion. My own reaction to his art based on my tastes and preferences. That is thing with art: it’s hard to criticize objectively. Unless, you have Phd in art history or something, and you go about it using a bunch of technical criteria that I, personally, am unaware of. Nonetheless, some subjective opinions are important: those of his audience. So then the question to ask is who is his audience? For whom was this work produced? What is its intention?

My best friend is currently studying professional photography, and we often have this debate. She complains when her professors don’t understand the meaning or the purpose of her work. I tell her this, “Right now, your prof is your client. The picture you create must satisfy him, if you are to do your job. If you want to do something simply for the sake of art, then you have to do it on your own time.” My point is that we have to look at Richardson’s work and ask : Is this something that he was commissioned to do, thus satisfying a particular client’s demands; or is this him doing his art as a form of his own personal expression? In the first case, we shouldn’t only be attacking Richardson, but his clients, the ones who commissioned such photographs. In the second case, a critique of Richardson becomes tricky because it becomes a question of one’s right to self expression. I definitely believe in the freedom of expression. Yet, as fellow reader Jade brought up, one’s responsibilities towards their art depends on their view of what art is. If you think art should serve a larger social purpose, then you do have a moral obligation to ensure that your art meets certain social and ethical standards. If, on the contrary, you believe that art is merely a form of personal expression; where its audience is of little importance, then your work doesn’t have to stand up to the same kind of standard.

Now, it’s fun to debate about Richardson’s imagery. It brings up all sorts philosophical questions about aesthetics. Unfortunately, here, there is something more to say. Richardson’s work ethic has been brought into question. When models accuse him of harassment, his work takes on a whole new dimension. Whenever we see his images now, we are forced to wonder whether or not the young woman in the photographed has been abused. It doesn’t matter if the accusations are true or not: the idea is in our heads. So, we are no longer talking about the quality of his work, but about his professionalism. As a professional, Richardson should live up to a certain code of ethics. All professionals do, and as many people have mentioned, if Richardson was some suit, acting the way he does, with his secretaries, it wouldn’t have taken much to get him fired. So yeah, there is a double standard. Maybe then there should be a guild for photographers, like there is for actors, physiotherapists, and other professionals, to regulate their activities. Because we all know that Mr. Richardson has not been the first to be accused of harassment, and I doubt that he will be the last.
On the other hand, as artists, I am not sure that photographers would have to live up to the exact same standards as other professionals. If, in fact, the model being photographed is fully consenting to what is happening around her and has no problem with her role in producing a given image, no matter how demeaning it may be, then it is hard to say that the photographer in question is doing something wrong. He is merely expressing himself. Now, I don’t have to like what he or she produces, but the photographer still has a right to do so. Yet this is true if and only if all participants have given their informed, full consent to the photographer; because, regardless of whether or not you are a photographer, as a human being you ought to have a certain amount of decency and respect for your pairs. To force one’s will on another is inexcusable.


I think that this whole debate highlights the dual role that the photographer plays. He or she is both an artist and a businessman. As a commercial photographer, the pictures he creates are but the product of a larger consumer complex driven by the dollar. Here, the issue with the hyper sexualized images that flood our environment is larger than the photographer himself. To change this, we have to look to the magazines, to the ad execs, and to the other honchos in suits for accountability. And then, we also have to look to ourselves. As artists however, the puck stops with the photographer. He or she has the right to self expression, and the right to determine the intention and the audience of his or her work. And although, photographers then also have the right (and some would even consider the duty) to contravene given social mores and norms, this doesn’t excuse them from respecting basic human decency. We wouldn’t excuse an artist for killing his subject for the sake of his art, now would we?