>>4099609Gavin: I never thought of the framing thing. The way he’ll zoom in on a pair of tits so close you can see there’s kind of some hairs on them. I was interviewed about him for one of these corny liberal modern sex shows and they were implying that Terry was a feminist because he was making “ugly” beautiful. l had to clarify that most of these women are still total fucking knockouts.
This isn’t some lesbian anarchist collective. They’re still the same supermodels that are on every other page of Vogue, only here, they’re making coffee with rubber boots on, or putting a tit on a watermelon. ln a way thats more subversive because you never see people like this portrayed so honestly. So yeah, you get Dennis Hopper with no blemishes removed, and then, on top of that, he has this weird close up that drives home how unusual the shot is even more. lt’s a double whammy…
Olivier: Let’s be honest. Terry’s pictures are definitely not feminist. They are as politically “incorrect” as pictures get. He is not glamorizing women’s power, beauty or strength. He is more portraying female beauty from a male perspective. Instead of trying to celebrate femininity they are focusing on the use of masculinity (his own subjective view of women) within fashion iconography.
Gavin: Most of the critics that hate him (I’m picturing sexless, lonely, thirty-something women with sandals) say he's just fucking girls, but with a camera in his hand.
