Terry Richardson by Johan Edberg - Textile and Fashion Management

Terry Richardson 

Johan Edberg 

S095363 

Introduction 

Brought up in quite a harsh punk environment of substance abuse, violence, promiscuity but also 

creativity Richardson is known for exploring the sexual, and often pornographic, side of the brand, 

person or object he is shooting. Nowadays the Richardson style is known among the masses for its 

gritty snapshot, sexy – often bordering kinky – and simple expression. Where icon David LaChapelle 

explores the luxury and decadent side of sex, Richardson keeps to the grittier amateurish, more 

simple and kinkier expressions. This being his signature style but like any commercial artist, 

Richardson can tone this down (or up) in order to fit the mission at hand. However the more noted 

works from Richardson is where this gritty kinky expression is indeed toned up. The broader 

audience might then write Richardson off as a one track pervert with no other direction to go but 

into porn-like expressions. 

Employing the snapshot aesthetics to a large extent, Richardson is not bound to a specific style or 

sort of locations. He has been know to say that his style is one of having to style. Richardson explains 

that it is in the casting process where it happens. The presumption of the more daring shoots are 

drawn up when looking at and talking to the models. Often this concerns how long they are willing to 

go. 

The snapshot aesthetics is together with regular advertisement photo techniques in a very daring, 

sexy - once again borderline kinky – the signature expressions of Mr. Richardson. A brilliant example 

of this daring expression is the Tom Ford Fragrance advertisement series that went where no one 

dared go before. Showing a oiled-up naked woman, belly to lower thighs with a perfume bottle 

placed over the gender parts and the other picture in the series is depicting a perfume bottle placed 

between a woman’s oily squeezed together breasts. One can also see her open mouth. Both pictures 

of course oozes of sex and especially the second one is strongly connotating what is famously known 

as a “titty-fuck” (see appendix) with the perfume bottle standing in for the penis. So, to conclude 

Richardson’s work is both provocative and playful, snapshot-like and sleek professional, and naked 

both figuratively and concretely. 

Richardson’s customer base is wide, stretching from luxury brands like Gucci, via high-end brands like 

Tommy Hilfiger and Miu Miu to the street wear sector with brands like Stüssy and Supreme. The 

commonality as I see it is that these brands are pushing the envelope looking for something new to 

make their brand and the advertisement campaign itself stand out from the surrounding 

advertisement landscape. But, one must also stress that Richardson is not just a clown who you call 

in to do crazy and “out-there” stuff, he is indeed a sincere artist with a playful yet commercial 

approach. Richardson is not known for any particular series or campaign, but is duly noted for his 

unique style of both life and photography. If engaging Richardson, customers know what they will 

get, or rather what they will not get. They will not get a Victorian run-of-the-mill everyday campaign 

with bland models. They will rather get a funky, low-key, a bit kinky and fun campaign bound to be 

noticed. 

When it comes to Richardson’s side projects no one can escape the pornographic connotations. 

Claiming that he is no fan of commercial porn, he still invites – through his webpage among other 

channels – people to pose nude in his apartment/studio. These sessions are commonly known to 

lead to everything other than Victorian pictures and often to Richardson having sex on camera with 

the posing girl. This is depicted in the book Kibosh released in 2004 in a limited issue of 2000. The



S095363 

book contains pictures of Richardson and his models engaging in sexual activities but the difference 

from regular porn is that the pictures are – most of them anyhow – shot to document the activity of 

sex, the whole situation not just genders thrusting into each other like in the mainstream porn 

publications. For example, one of the pictures is of two sets of legs the woman is clearly on the knees 

giving a blowjob to the man standing up. If this was in a mainstream porn context, legs would not be 

of the editors priorities. Is this porn then? Well, if you ask me it is, but porn as a concept has 

widened, wondered into popular culture and is not necessarily a bad thing. Consenting adults are in 

my view free to do whatever they like. One can of course question the good taste of publishing a 

book with these pictures. But if one starts judging pseudo-arty publications like Kibosh one could 

possibly find oneself in cultural dire straits. 

There are several books released containing different aspects of Richardson’s works. Only parts of 

these are of his work as a fashion photographer. Titles include “Bob Richardson” - an exposé about 

Richardson’s on and off-photographer father. “Wives, wheels, weapons” where Richardson 

interprets a James Frey novel. Then there is the epic “Terry World” (Taschen 2004) where Dian 

Hanson presents a mix of Richardson’s sex side projects, portraits, editorials and campaigns. 

In 2009 Richardson was engaged to do the prestigious Pirelli Calendar for 2010, one of the more 

noted pictorial publications in the world. His predecessors include Bruce Weber, Anne Leibovitz, 

Richard Avedon, Patrick Demarchelier, Mert and Marcus, and a number of other world famous 

photographers. 

Richardson is indeed on his way to becoming a pop cultural and fashion icon himself. He has been 

involved in several collaborations with street wear brands doing prints for t-shirts skateboards 

amongst other products. 

The Sisley campaign of 2001 

Richardson has been shooting several campaigns for Sisley since 1999, I’ve chosen to analyze the 

“Farming” campaign from 2001 (see appendix). Although one might say that a nine year old 

campaign is not relevant, the landscape of fashion photography is not as fast paced to date-out a 

campaign like this. Especially when Richardson employs his signature style, which hardly change over 

the years. 

For the analysis of the pictures I have utilized Panofskys three-leveled iconology model. Especially the 

later two, the iconographic and iconological levels. The iconographic level is where the depicted is 

put into a literary context. The iconological level is where the depicted is put into context with the 

surrounding world and current times. 

Sisley is a bit of bland brand in my view, typically international in its style expression. Not hailing from 

any physical nor a mental place. This is of course not only a bad thing – the brand fits virtually 

everywhere. It is aimed at a younger hipster-like audience. It is mid-range and has a style expression 

that is in the vicinity of Benetton (who also owns the brand), French Connection, Miu Miu and also 

Swedish brands like Filippa K and especially Acne.



S095363 

I have divided the analysis into areas where Richardson stands out as a photographer and utilizes 

specific technique and/or approaches. 

Playfulness – Now, the look of the collection is not very Farm-like, so my interpretation of the person 

responsible for the brand intentions is that he/she wanted the campaign to strengthen the brand, 

not the collection at hand in particular. This is a known and well utilized strategy. This manner gives 

the creative team much freer hands, which in my experience is rarely a bad idea. The playful 

approach that Richardson employs is quite visible on a number of the collection pictures. The models 

are doing a number of weird and - to the viewer somewhat - amusing stuff in the farm setting, like 

riding on a donkey, eating hay, caressing a pig and milking a cow. 

Not very traditionally fashionable picture I would say. This notion of playfulness could be both good 

and bad for Sisley depending on where in their target group they are aiming. For the younger 

customer – of whom many might recognize the Richardson signature – the playfulness would 

probably work in favor of the brand. Making it stand out and be hip and against the crushing tide of 

conformity in the fashion segment. For a slightly older customer, who might not be aware of how the 

world of fashion photography is turning, the playful elements are likely to be a bit confusing. But in 

my view Sisley is quite bland so anything in a campaign that stand out form the other brands is by 

default good. 

All props, from cows to haystack connotates everything else but fashion. Farm life is hardly one of 

the traditionally fashionable lifestyles. And while the clothes are neither farm nor worker influenced 

the props and the setting must be regarded as a playful element. 

Sexy/kinky – In the series the models are doing several sexy/kinky/porn-like actions. Several pictures 

are showing models with hand down their panties touching private parts. There are same sex as well 

as opposing sex caressing of breast, something that passes for suggested intercourse, pony play with 

a male model kitted with a horse saddle and a woman model riding his back and pulling his hair. 

There is of course also the Richardson signature general nudity going on in the pictures. 

And then there is the infamous cumshot pictures, where the model Josie Maran aims the spray of 

milk from the teat towards the mouth. In my view it is obvious that the teat in this case takes on the 

role of a phallus. The spray however goes all over the mouth region of Mrs. Marans face moving over 

from arty to porn-like expression. On the other hand, in one of the pictures in the milking section the 

models smiles or even laughs with milk on her mouth and the cows teats in the background. This one 

connotates health and general farm life wellbeing. No porn here. However, the picture that got the 

most attention was of course the one where the model aims the spray at her mouth and face looking 

into the camera with a, let’s not beat around the bush, straight up horny look. In the milking section 

there are also a number of pictures where milk takes on the role of sperm, running down different 

parts of the models body and clothes. 

This could not have been a surprise from Sisley, when engaging Richardson this is what you get. 

Maybe they wanted more nudity maybe less, but what they got was a loud and clear Richardson 

manifestation of the beauty of sex and the female (and also male) body. How this effects with the 

brand image in the long perspective is in my opinion yet to be seen. Sisley is not known for their 

sexiness but using these campaigns as a part of a larger brand repositioning strategy can possibly 

transform them into a brand that utilizes sex in both communication and collections.



S095363 

Grittyness – As usual Richardson use cheap gear and basic lighting solutions. The focus on this 

campaign is catching a moment and a conveying feelings. The clothes are secondary as this is indeed 

a campaign geared at brand image. The pictures are not clean, like those of, say, Givenchy or Prada. 

Instead this campaign are filled with pictures that are a bit messy and warm in colour and sharp in 

contrast. Still shot from the hip and in the moment. As if the photographer had a sudden flash of 

inspiration and directs the model and shoots the picture before anyone really knows what happens. 

One can clearly see grittyness in the settings and surroundings. These seem to not have been 

retouched at all. This grittyness follows the whole campaign and therefore it has some impact on the 

image of the brand at hand. I interpret this as a part of the “Richardson package” that Sisley bought 

into when engaging him and that this is a part of the operation of moving the brand into a hipper 

context. Gaining the valuable and mysterious “cred” or credibility. It is somewhat important for a 

brand to tell the customers that “Hey, we are not just doing what we always do, we are changing” In 

connection to this it is of course important not to change too much and in that process confusing the 

customer but elements of change are healthy for any and all brands. These changes need to occur in 

their profile but not their identity of the brand. 

Location – I have already mention the location above when discussing the settings. The farm is 

typical for Richardson’s style. Unexpected, not very fashionable, glamorous or clean but he uses the 

locations in a playful and creative way. The picture with the female model laying down in the cows 

pen is pretty much a work of art in my view. Beautiful, unexpected, a challenge towards the regular 

and archetypical art photography and a call to arms for all amateur photographers to create 

masterpieces. Once again, the location is not very Sisley. Its not very fashionable at all. There could 

have been a large farm, a classic upper-class establishment, but in this case it is not. Connotations 

differ widely between regular American farm and upper-class farm. Of course Richardson delivers 

what the farm in questions stands for, the simple life, the keeping in pace with nature and the 

seasons, the love and caring for the barnyard animals and the hard labor. Mixed up with a large 

portion of breast, crotch, some dirt and sex in general you get the 2001 Sisley campaign shot by Terry 

Richardson. 

Models – Models are of course always beautiful people. Richardson is known for using both well 

known, classic looking models and the unestablished models with significant looks. Taking place in 

the midst of the heroin-chic era, these models and this campaign probably stood out a bit from the 

other because of there healthy look. Especially Josie Maran, with her darker complexion and 

beautiful smile. XXXXX look a bit pale, but still not as anorectic as the models did back then. All look 

healthy, they are smiling and even laughing in some pictures. The location and props together with 

the models poses and expressions vouch for some recognition. As usual, there is the elements of 

playfulness and the unexpected and the poses, expressions and activities oozes sex. Typically 

Richardson. Models are important for the brand. They are more that someone (or something) to 

hand your collection on, we nowadays see models as spokespersons for the brand during the whole 

season. Kind of like in the sports world, where sponsorship deals tend to run longer and longer. It 

would not be credible of Sisley to have the heroin-chic models in a farm setting. Instead they gone 

with healthy looking models who have some of the “girl or boy next door” factor. The models also 

look to be slightly aged. In the fashion world this means that they are over 23. This is good for Sisley 

as thy apparently have a slightly older target group.



S095363 

The scar – Josie Maran have a quite prominent scar on her stomach. Apparently it is from appendix 

surgery. I think this is one of the more interesting features of the campaign. A scar connotates 

danger, traumatic experiences and bravery amongst other things. This is not commonly seen on 

women, especially not women modeling for a fashion brand. Richardson, employing his signature 

style, of course shows the scar and uses it to highlight the clothes. But also the brand, since the scar 

connotates imperfectness Sisley tell their customers that nobody is perfect, not even the models, 

and that everybody is beautiful in their own way. And of course that Sisley caters for all. 

The animals – Not being professional models, but animals, the barnyard animals plays an interesting 

role. These friendly creatures can not be directed as humans can. This shows especially well in the 

close-ups. Richardson technique is very visible here. Another photographer would probably employ 

professional animal models and retouch them indefinitely to achieve perfection. Richardson on the 

other hand just fires away as usual catching the real and unblinking interaction between man and 

animal. Truly beautiful stuff. Also, just casting a pig and a donkey into a fashion production is quite 

daring, as these two animals is not seen as very fashionable. Quite the opposite actually, being 

looked upon as dirty, unclean, connotating everything else but fashionable lifestyle. This however 

make the pictures stand out and therefore most likely gaining attention. Whether positive or 

negative is hard to judge. 

Outcome and discussion 

Judging the value of a brand by analyzing one campaign is risky business. I would say that the 

campaign decreased the value of the brand simply because the target audience did not appreciate 

the full genius of the campaign. The campaign is good out of brand building or rather brand moving 

perspective, but the larger audience is still used to the old expressions and therefore does not follow 

the new manners. Furthermore the new audience could not appreciate the full scope of the brand 

since the move into their area was not yet completed. When investing and venturing into a brand 

moving operation this is something that is already taken into account. So, the campaign as an 

isolated event was probably not that good, but putting it in a wider brand building or moving 

perspective it does the job. The brand proves itself as one that is in touch with trends and the shifting 

times just by engaging Richardson to do anything in relation to the brand. From my point of view, 

knowing a bit about the Sisley brand, I feel that Richardson was not the ultimate solution for this 

operation. Sisley should go with a sleek, clean and perhaps also minimalistic expression like many 

European fashion brands employed, and still employs, at the time. This would play better with the 

brands storytelling and also with the collections. Should there be a case where the collections are 

farm-life inspired this kind of aesthetics seen in the 2001 campaign, and probably also Richardson as 

photographer, would fit very good. Richardson’s DIY approach is a reflection of what happens in the 

rest of the society. The DIY movement that started somewhere in the punk movement and enhanced 

itself enormously with the internet and there are a large number of professionals, film makers, art 

directors and photographers that mimic the DIY techniques. The DIY movement have a large number 

of followers and these followers are often an attractive customer base for many brands, Sisley 

included. In the mind of the DIY-people Sisley’s brand has taken a better position because they 

employed the techniques of Richardson.



S095363 

Now, did Richardson himself land on his feet after this venture. My firm belief is that he indeed did. 

He might have lost some of the artistic credibility by “selling out” to commercial interests. This 

expression is in my opinion used by not so talented artist not good enough to intrigue commercial 

actors and who do not have enough artistic freedom of though to do both commercial and artier 

work. Coming from the underground art environment, Richardson might encounter some difficulties 

entering the super-commercial world of high fashion photography. By employing his special style on 

to any an all missions Richardson have kept much of his artistic and creative freedom. When keeping 

these two intact, the Richardson brand will sustain and almost certainly strengthen itself over time. 

In doing the Sisley campaign his way other brands notices that Richardson’s style fits very well into a 

commercial context and might start explore how their brand would do together with Richardson. 

This certainly happened as Richardson began shooting for Sisley in 1998 being one of his first supercommercial 

customers. Since then several other brand followed and engaged Richardson. True 

success story, if you ask me. The most impressive thing about Richardson is that he seems virtually 

untouched by the fame he ahs gained. He strikes me as being exactly the same person as he was 

before he became a superstar photographer. So, by being a likable guy, a skilled professional and a 

creative visionary who combines his style together with the mission at hand, Richardson will keep 

being one of the most noted photographers in the world. The obsession with sex and the willingness 

to show off himself will also keep him in the public eye for some time to come. 

One worry for Richardson could be the changing in what is seen cool, in and hip in fashion 

photography. His style, however cool, might not be the tune of tomorrow. As I have come to 

understand it, Richardson is not very technically skilled as many of his colleagues. He lives on his 

creativity and inspiration and while others might have a easier time applying themselves to shiftings 

Richardson might struggle with these. People might also get tired of him and write him off as a 

cartoon figure. His lifestyle is indeed something taken from a fairy tail. He need to find the thin line of 

balance between his commercial work, the art work and the private-made-public endeavors in sex. 

So far he has been walking the line very nicely but what happens if he falls off into one side? 

Richardson is appreciated for his ability to combine these three worlds, but what happens if he 

ventures into one of them and takes the focus off the other two? My view is that he need to stay in 

the sex and commercial world in order to maintain his brand. However I would personally see him 

doing more art endeavors and applying his technique in to more complex subjects.

Tom Ford Fragrance campaign The “Titty-fuck” 

Appendix 


S095363

Richardson is not only shooting porn-like. Barack Obama 2008 

Appendix 


S095363

Actor Viggo Mortensen 2005 

Appendix 


S095363

The 2001 Sisley Campaign 

Appendix 


S095363

Appendix 


S095363

Appendix 


S095363

Appendix 


S095363

Appendix 


S095363

Appendix 


S095363

Appendix 


S095363

Appendix 


S095363

Appendix 


S095363

Appendix 


S095363

Appendix 


S095363

Appendix 


S095363

Appendix 


S095363

Appendix 


S095363

Terry Richardson by Johan Edberg - Textile and Fashion Management

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?