You’re probably aware of the Terry Richardson extravaganza. If you’re not, take a glance at this post from A Photo Editor which provides a roundup of links to the posts which kicked the whole affair off.
The reactions in the blogsophere were interesting. Lots of people have attacked Richardson, either because of the kind of work he produces, or because of either firsthand or hearsay accounts of how he behaves while producing the work, or — in many cases — a muddled combination of both.
Some have defended Richardson, and of those defenses, some are based on personal experience with Richardson, some are based on the observation that Richardson’s behavior is not actually unusual in the fashion world, and that it is therefore unfair to single him out, and some are the kind of non-defense which usually begins with “I don’t know what really happened,” and ends with, “let’s not jump to conclusions.”
Of the posts that are on the attack, I think the most persuasive are this one by Kate Harding at Salon (via Conscientious) and this one from Colin Pantall.
From the Salon piece:
And so people in the industry continue to condone flagrant sexual harassment — framing it as the expected behavior of “crazy people and big personalities” and the natural consequence of having “beautiful girls” in the workplace — and claiming the fact that everybody knows it’s happening somehow makes it OK. And so people pretend the real issue here is art vs. prudishness, that any objection to Richardson’s alleged behavior is about his taking nudie pictures at all, instead of about his getting naked himself and asking the models to get him off while they’re on the job.
From Colin Pantall:
They are like the Catholic Church (and you can substitute the religion of your choice here and the sentiment will still apply); editor-cardinals, designer-cardinals, art-director-cardinals and photographer-cardinals - covering up and remaining silent over the abuse that is going on in their midst, and pretending that they are nice and liberal and promoting freedom of expression and freedom of thought. But they are worse than the Catholic Church, because at least some members of that church are doing something to confront the paedophilia, jew-hating, homophobia and misogyny in its midst. You can switch the prejudices around but the wilful denial and obfuscation of what are quite clear-cut employment related ethical issues is so deafening that it is news when anyone steps out of line to speak out (as Rie Rasmussen did with Richardson). Being a model is a job and nothing more. (“So, Miss Jones, now before you get that promotion to head teller, how about a little hand job. It’ll be fun!” How does that sound?).
Pantall’s metaphor is very harsh, and one might argue that by referencing pedophilia at all, he taints his argument. However, I think it’s a justified comparison, because it underscores the institutional aspect in all this; there are huge cultural and economic interests wrapped up primarily in defending a system and only secondarily at protecting the people who exist in the lower ranks of that system.
On the defender’s side, there are a lot of folks (especially running rampant in comment sections) who seem to protest that they don’t care about this, and no one should care about this, because we should all be very blasé about it. Which is interesting only insofar as it begs the question of why people should bother to be so very aggressively, explicitly, and on-the-record blasé. When I feel that way about a topic, I hardly ever go out of my way to explain that I do and why.
Clayton Cubitt has been one of the more vocal and expressive defenders, and one of the funnier ones. Some of his comments on the topic in his twitter feed have the tang of stale conservatism about them — like, “Can only young models shoot young models?” which is a clearly bogus argument, unless someone has suggested that Richardson’s behavior would be okay if he were a young model. (Note: I don’t mean to suggest that Cubitt is a conservative, or stale, but this bit of reasoning sure is.)
What carries a bit more weight for me, and what did score a chuckle, is, “The Terry Richardson witch-hunt currently brewing is the American Venn diagram where Pat Robertsons overlap with Andrea Dworkins.”
It’s an interesting point and to some degree a valid one. I do think that the attacks on Richardson which conflate the legitimacy of the kind of photography he does with the legitimacy of his behavior in the workplace are counterproductive both in terms of photography and in terms of workplace rights.
If you are opposed to pornographic or psuedo-pornographic depictions of women, you doubtless have some nasty things to say about Richardson’s photography. If you are opposed to the confusion of fashion and porn, then you most certainly do. Personally, I don’t much care about these matters, mainly because I find fashion photography in general to be so utterly tedious.
But, whether or not you like the kind of photography that Richardson produces, that issue really should be separated from the question of how he treats models who work with him, and whether that behavior is professionally, ethically, and legally acceptable. It’s very easy for moralists (whether religious or feminist or both or neither) to confuse moral questions that seem to be (but in reality are not) very closely related. As Jenna Sauers wrote in the Jezebel piece on the 16th,
When I modeled, I shot both topless and implied nude with a variety of photographers — in fact, my first editorial shoot, for Italian Glamour, was topless — and never was I sexually harassed on a set. Nor did I expect, or feel that I deserved, to be simply because of the kind of work I was there to do. Instead, I expected those around me to not violate my dignity at work. Peck agrees that Richardson’s behavior is exceptional, and crosses some clear lines. “Of all the fine folks I’ve frolicked au naturel for, he’s the only one who’s left me feeling like I needed to take two showers.”
This is why it’s important to differentiate between the questions of, “Is Richardson’s photography icky,” and “Is Richardson’s workplace behavior acceptable.”
I think if Cubitt zeroed in on this point of logical inconsistency in some of the attacks on Richardson, his defense would carry more water. However, most of what he has to say falls rather into the un-defense category, like this page of questions that he thinks anyone “should be able to answer before commenting.”
They are questions like “Can a young (adult) model realistically and fully consent when posing sexually for an older photographer?” — questions which, while perhaps thought-provoking, are not really germane to the question of whether Richardson’s behavior is acceptable. Why are they not germane? Because they are almost all questions about photography and the nature of the power relationships among the parties involved in photography, etc., etc, and what they are really doing is reinforcing the implicit and suspect belief that fashion photography exists in a separate world with separate rules and expectations for how people should be treated on the job.
Cubitt also qualifies his comments by admitting he is “not commenting on the validity of the accusations being made. I wasn’t there. But perhaps a better venue for actual provable charges would be the justice system, not some star-fucking/star-hating mob on the internet. It’s cheap and easy to slander a reputation, and hard to repair it.”
Which is fair enough, although (a) that sort of observation is often a way of silencing dissent (i.e., “well, if you can’t prove that in court, you don’t get to say it at all”), and (b) there has been a stage of every sexual misconduct scandal when someone said that in defense of the guilty party.
Cubitt’s un-defense and specific “witchhunt” phrasing were taken up by his personal pal and internet celeb Xeni Jardin in a short post with a long comments thread that was later quietly deleted. However, some of the comments were retrieved and posted elsewhere. Do read those comments, because it’s an interesting discussion.
Most of what Xeni has to say there falls again into the un-defense category; the most interesting exception is this observation:
There is a difference between “unorthodox sexual lifestyle” and “exploitative skeeve.”
This is true, and it’s an important distinction because for many observers, the difference is not clear, and because of this, various sexual identities and practices between consenting parties have long been unfairly criminalized — some still are in some places.
However, everyone who goes to work in the morning (or afternoon or evening) has a responsibility for understanding where sexual lifestyle leaves off and where workplace roles, relationships, and laws take effect. And if you are not capable of drawing that line, then I think that would be one of the few true and non-arbitrary indicators that you’ve gone from having a healthy but unconventional identity to having a serious problem.
However, this is not really an area where I feel qualified to dispense judgments, so I asked someone I know who is a bit more versed in the relevant politics and ethics. She framed the problem well:
It’s one of the problems in advocating for sex “positivity.” There’s a tendency to want to be super cool with all of it and while I’m not sure how you pick and choose where to draw personal and societal lines in the sand, I do think that at a minimum it’s important to periodically “turn the lights on” in the room and take a look and talk about what we think — so that we aren’t just abandoning all thoughts of lines — because without any I think we make more room for bad things to happen to people/kids who aren’t asking for them.
On the other hand — keeping a spotlight trained on anything that moves in a provocative manner doesn’t do us anymore good and I think has the same end result.
She also said — along the same lines as Pantall — that it would be good if this controversy, whatever it ultimately spells out for Richardson, leads to changes in the fashion industry, and greater support and protections for young models.
I think this is the critical issue — I don’t really care about anything Richardson produces, in photographic terms. It’s simply not that interesting. Nor does it matter to me whether someone gives him a handjob. But unless someone is being hired to give handjobs, and has a contract and job description consistent with that, there should not be any question regarding whether or not they are expected (implicitly or explicitly) to do so in the workplace, whether or not that workplace happens to have cameras in it.
The burden is on the employer, not the employee, to create and maintain a safe workplace environment, and unless you’re a criminal or mentally incompetent, this should not present anyone — no matter how “artistic” or “unorthodox” they may be — with an unbearable burden.
