To quote Tavi’s kick-ass post about Terry Richardson’s pervasive perversity:
And, let’s clarify: you don’t love women just because you have sex with them and like taking pictures of their ladyparts. I’m not saying that’s all Richardson does, but “love” entails “respect” and also “the basic human decency to not use pictures of someone’s lady parts for your photography show without her permission” and also “the basic human decency to not pressure a girl into giving you a hand job because OH MY GOD I WILL LITERALLY NOT BE ABLE TO PRESS THE FLASH BUTTON ON MY CAMERA UNLESS YOU TAKE NOTICE OF THE FACT THAT I HAVE NO PANTS ON. ALSO I’M A PROFESSIONAL.
The full set of NSFW images is here on Jezebel. I’d add my own commentary, but find that I’m not yet able to do so without getting extra stabby and dropping f-bombs every other word. Such as.
Just read style rookie: can i just say: now.
What’s your take on the art vs exploitation debate?
Sweetie Pie
Tumblr Tuesday: Floating Beds and Trekkie Dreams
I Kissed a Girl (Stingray) and I Liked It
Tumblr Tuesday: Covered Boats and Watercolor Cake
STF + Radiant Cosmetics Giveaway WINNER!
Tumblr Tuesday: Book Tornadoes and Blonde Brownies
Current Obsession: Liberty Print Dunks
Tavi is such an intense and in-depth writer. Sometimes I feel she outdoes me when she states her opinions. She’s absolutely right.
Btw, I saw you on Chictopia & now you are a part of my daily reads.
Photography should not objectify their subjects, or expose them to unnecessary wounded acts of pride, but should be there to make a statement that can simply be understood and thought-provoking, in the good sense, and absolutely some kinda of interesting.
Exactly. If the photography itself is gleefully mocking/degrading its subject–and those subjects, in this case, are very young and vulnerable girls–I have a problem. Screw making an “artistic statement.” We’re talking about fellow human beings here.