I received this comment on Friday’s post about Terry Richardson:
I’d love to know *why* you love him. I mean, this is basically soft porn, it’s a pretty girl with her tits out and the photographer pretending to shag her.
Oh, with scarves.
Why do you love it/him? Is it clever in some way I can’t understand? Ironic? Meta? Uhhhh… hotsexyalmostporn and that’s enough?
No, really. Why can you dismiss PamAm for being trashy and yet this is somehow *fashion*?
Here’s my response (below).
1. I love Terry Richardson’s brazen sexuality. I’m not sure if you can even say that about a man, but it’s as applicable an expression as I can think of. I find it fascinating that he’s been able to take his style of photography – which is basically porn – and bring it into the mainstream labelled as fashion/art.
2. I love it how he puts himself in his photographs. Even when it’s all about the subject, it’s always all about him too. It doesn’t matter who he’s shooting – even President Obama – he’ll put himself in the shot. It’s like the ultimate ‘I was here’ graffiti on a toilet wall. He may just be the greatest self promoter of our time.
3. I love it how he polarises people. I think that’s the best way to be – loved or hated. Who wants shades of grey when you can have black or white? I admire his single minded vision.
4. I think his shoots are incredibly hot. And witty and tongue in cheek and ballsy.
5. And for the commenter, the difference between Terry Richardson and Pamela Anderson is how they’ve positioned themselves in the market. I’m not in any way anti Pamela Anderson, I’m anti bringing Pamela Anderson to NZ Fashion Week as a publicity stunt – she has no industry credibility. I’d have more faith in her as a lifeguard than as a designer. Bring Terry Richardson to your Fashion Week though and it instantly raises the credibility of the event. That’s the difference.
I LIKE YOU!