Why wasn't Terry Richardson blacklisted years ago?
Thursday 26th October 2017 | Geri
As of Monday, Conde Nast International announced that it was severing all ties with photographer Terry Richardson.
James Woodhouse, executive vice-president declared that “Any shoots that have been commission(ed) or any shoots that have been completed but not yet published, should be killed and substituted with other material.”
But why has it taken the industry almost a decade to disassociate themselves from the abuser?
If they had any sort of conscious he would have been blacklisted years ago - when the allegations first came out. From not one (not that the number of women has got anything to do with it) but various women who spoke out about their sexual assault and exploitation.
I mean we are talking about a man who once said “It’s not who you know, it’s who you blow. I don’t have a hole in my jeans for nothing” when talking about cracking the modelling industry.
This announcement comes from selfish brand-preserving motivations.
With the current focus on men abusing their position of power, Weinstein in Hollywood being the recent example. It seems that fashion has followed the film industry in no longer wanting to be associated with abusers- Valentino and Bulgari both also confirmed they no longer want to work with Richardson after the news.
Not that any of this really matters - I mean who cares if Vogue and Co don’t want to work with Richardson. It’s too late for all the women who have left his “shoots” with PTSD and continued to watch him being adorned by the industry for being ‘controversial’.
A good thing about Richardson being dropped by brands now is that it puts the onus on industries to stop allowing men to violate their position of power, fame or money either by promoting their work, encouraging the 'controversy’ or with collaborations.