Wednesday, May 26, 2010

On the Terry Richardson (Issue, if you will... )

Hello my dear blog readers,

How are you all?

I hope you are enjoying the nice weather if you live in London, ON. I love how the weather has the capacity to make everyone act more lively. Plus, I love a ton of the shorts/tee shirts and miniature skirt combinations I have seen so far. I should probably turn my lovely sightings into a couple of blog posts for you guys. What a splendid idea!

Also, I HAVE A NEW FOLLOWER!!!!!!! WOO HOO! CELEBRATION! Thank you Laurel and Beth :)

Now, onto the whole Terry Richardson scandal. Although it would be informative and informational if I posted some of the pictures related to the Terry Richardson scandal (if you will), I will not post them because they would most likely be considered as pornography, and one of the values of my blog is that I try not to post any pictures with show any woman or girl's private parts, and Terry Richardson's photographs definitely show off many a female's private parts.


God designed for both the male and female body parts to be private to everyone except for men and women's spouses in an intimate setting with only them. On everyone, these specific body parts are private, and we need to respect people's bodies, and their private natures.

I personally do not believe that Terry Richardson respects people's private parts in his photography work. This is only my opinion. I do not know what Terry's motive is for taking these pictures, so I will refrain from being too judgemental on his photographical work.

The subject matter of Terry's photographs is basically nude photography, but in a way that seems to completely defile and exploit the ladies who pose for the pictures. And who knows? Who knows if Terry had the objective of taking these kinds of pictures, or if the woman who take front and centre in these photographs wanted to have their picture taken like this? Although I highly doubt that many girls/young women or women would initiate for someone to take a picture and behave in that manner... although some might... but you would not really hope for that.

I think that nude photography can be beautiful. I really do. I also believe that there is a fine line between beautiful nude photography and just plain pervertedness. Using women's purposefully intimate body parts as seemingly mere accessory in photographs that, to the viewer, look just wrong, is so distateful. I mean... if you really want nude photography to be your main photographical focus, do it in what the viewer would feel is a nicer, purer, way.

Terry Richardson is a fashion photography. In the photographs, there seem to be elements of fashion that are missing. People can call nude photography fashion, but where are the clothes? You know what I am saying?
There seems to be no clothing in these pictures... I feel like if you want to take a bit of a nude photograph intertwined with fashion elements, at least have your models wearing a bit of clothing. I mean...

What if we started a revelation?

What if we came to a point where it was lovely and interesting to have girls in fashion fully dressed? I mean on the runway, and in fashion magazine articles. What if we got back to the wholesome, God intended way that we were at before? I mean... getting back to a more wholesome place would take creative direction from major players in the fashion industry, but I believe anything is possible.

I really advocate for modesty and privacy. This is the way God intended for us to dress, and present ourselves. I am a firm believer that we as woman can be covered up, as well as well dressed too. It is possible. I feel like fashion can be super innovative and creative, while still being attractive and appealing to the opposite sex.

I would love to know what you think about this issue. I think this is a tiny exploratory tidbit about what I could right, but I would love to hear more about what you think, and where you stand on this issue.



1 comment:

blackbird said...

WHHHOOOOT! i can pretty much agree with every word. i think another point though, would be that in addition to him having no respect for his subjects, his subjects have no respect for themselves.