Terry Richardson and Miley Cyrus, at it Again (NSFW)

This article contains images and/or video that the editors have flagged as NSFW (Not Safe for Work).
To view this content you must be logged in to your Fstoppers account.

Terry Richardson and Miley Cyrus are completely, as you'd say in middle school terms, MFEO. Or made for each other if you can't remember that far back. They both have taken the spotlight and thrust it upon themselves by stepping out of the box and making people want to see whatever they're going to do next. Apparently in their world it just means a whole lot of nudity which may or may not entail Miley thrusting herself into an Arizona Grapeade.

If there is one thing you have to give credit to Terry for, it's the fact that he is consistent and can turn out a editorial like nobody's business. And since the photography community loves to talk about him and like it or not, everyone loves a good Miley Cyrus story, I figured I'd leave you with the gems that have come out of their most recent shoot.

If you would like to view more, head over to the archives at Terry's Diary.

[Via: Terry's Diary]

 

 
Log in or register to post comments

155 Comments

I know this is overlooked because of the content, but the red eye clearly shows lack of skill. Am I being too harsh? Sorry.

Fucking love it. Well done Terry.

Terry Richardson is such an untalented paedo scumbag

And yet he's extremely commercially successful and all of you are stuck here with nothing else better to do than spew venom. A lot of good all that hate is doing you...

Hitler had thousands at his feet, was a role model for his people and was an awesome speacher. So, yeah, success is the ultimate goal and we shouldn't talk bad about that kind of people...

Feel like the 58 mil bit was started by Terry, wonder who's rate went up because of that and all the publicity saying thats how much he makes. Terry may be a bad photographer to everyone out there with a MKIII and an 85 but he seems to be shooting what he wants, how he wants, when he wants (creative win?). The controversy with Miley and him talent wise is a perfect mix because were all here talking about it and thats what separates them from others, a s#$% storm of controversy and big budgets! :D

Lee Christiansen's picture

I think this sadly confirms that the "art world" is more interested in the signature rather than the actual image.

If I'd taken these images I'd be derided for producing poor quality photographs - but as it's Mr Richardson, then they must be wonderful.

The true talent is being able to secure large sums of money for such "artistry." And in that respect Terry has my respect.

Personally I think that anyone could have taken these pictures, which means that he is not applying anything artistic, or in other words he takes candid pictures, which works for some people, but honestly this is just degrading photographers who actually work very hard to come up with a fine finished image that stands out.

JOE DDD (Daniel Dalin Drechsler)'s picture

Richardson, must be the smartest business man ever.
He must have some kind of amazing knowledge on how to market stuff.
In my opinion, his photos are no better than a digital Debbie's photos.
Some might wanna argue his work is unique. L O L

best answer to those folks is " UMM YA, OOOOKAYYYYY"

I think he is the absolute best example of knowing how to market yourself. IT HAS TO BE, that he knows how to market himself.

We all can see his pics.

we all know what they look like.
What else could it be but brilliant business/marketing sense?

Voilá.... the magic of all great artist!

Very bland photos with flat ugly lighting ,they look like they belong on a Facebook wall.. Testimony to the power of cronyism ..

Ya'll ever trace back that 58 mil a year claim? Guess how many people talk about that now in the photo world, every photog out there and then some (art buyers) with how controversial and "technically whac" his images are, and then guess who's rate has gone up with that claim that he made 58 mil last year. Wonder where/who may have had a hand starting that/ read a book called trust me I'm lying. We're doing the marketing for both of them right now, they do what they love for a liven, we complain about it> more marketing (controversy)>more obnoxiousness/controversy $> more whining/controversy> $$$. They're bad ass marketers, maybe everyone should take a page out've they're book with a little focus and see that you can make a great living at what you do with the right way of showing yourself, without the unfortunate haircut and pop up flash.

Her eyes are glossy like she's on something. Not talking about the red-eye from the camera-flash (bad photographer), but she looks like she's in a haze.

The photographer should invest in a better camera than a Polaroid.

Don't you h8ers get it? Terry Richardson is a great photographer who employs his formidable skills to make his photographer look crappy. He does this on purpose and you just don't appreciate how hard that is to do. He's spent a lifetime perfecting the art of taking crappy photos. It isn't like he just takes bad photos because he's a terrible photographer; he takes bad photos because he's so good. That is his genius! ;-p

Firstly, I don't know him, so there's no reason for me to hate him. He's a great photographer, maybe. The real fact is yes, he has a very good business, pocketing $50+ million dollars income in just 1 year, that's an un-arguable fact.

But just about the series of pictures above, honestly, 'uncle Bob' or 'cousin Joe' with mediocre P&S camera can take/produce those pictures, with the red eyes, flat front lighting, and blast-in-the face built in flash.

Now, you're saying that he spent his lifetime perfecting methods of producing pictures that most people without decent photography skills and armed with mediocre P&S could do? I don't know, but that doesn't sound like a 'win' to me....

What's more logical theory for me, though, is that he's so successful, so well known, and so damn rich, that he developed an attitude. " 'F' it, I'm Terry Richardson, I can do anything I want. I can shoot crappy pictures of Miley and other celebrities (that other photographers are dying to shoot), and still got away with it, because I'm TR..."

But of course that's just my personal opinion, though....

Marcus, i·ro·ny1 ˈīrənē,ˈiərnē/ noun
noun: irony
1.
the
expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies
the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.

Irony, Marcus, irony.

You're all missing the point.

Michael Comeau's picture

Terry's value comes from the fact that his style is recognizable, not how aesthetically pleasing other photographers find it. The fact that people either love it or hate it is the whole point of it.

You should seriously question your definition of value. Is there any real value in this work?

So you're saying that the messenger is more important than the message itself?

Let's say, me and Gordon Ramsay are in the kitchen together. Me and GR both are making tea together, with the exact same water, same tea leafs, same type and amount of sugar, same cutlery, even same amount of strokes of spoon. Basically I'm doing EXACTLY what GR does. Does his tea still tastes better, because he's Gordon Ramsay, and I'm a nobody?

I'm not disputing you. Your words hold some degree of realistic truth. It's just sad to see how the world has come to this....

Thank goodness Terry has his pants on when he does a selfie!

Ben .'s picture

yeah shes not on drugs at all!

I find these images an abasement of everything miley's music one stood, which was empowerment ...This is no longer fun loving. Its perverse. It's not even good quality camera work! It's a creeper, and other creepers, getting their rocks of to a prepubescent looking girl! She, her agent and manager need to get her in line...This is disgusting.

He does have other work that is actually good high end photography but the guy is a scumbag

Jayson Carey's picture

I can't believe how many so-called "artists" are not seeing his work for what it is: shock art. your mere reaction is the EXACT reason he does things like this. You can trash his work all you want, but at the end of the day, you're still talking about him.

i think this ones really bad. but i respect that they are highly respectable and prominant characters in the fashion and music industry. but work wise this is a great dissapointment, i am not talking abt the explicit content. May be Terry is a great photographer but that vibe to a fashion editorial, i really cant find it in these images and as a photographer i only think Miley as a character in my frame and so no comments on her. hey hu knows maybe the art director wanted it this way. ANyway this ones definitely a reshoot for me had i given this to my teachers when submitting fashion and editorial projects. i speak with with no offense to anyone and i am really sorry if what i think is completely absurd and wrong. Art has become infinite. does anybody agree if we had to set specific standards to photography as well, we could probably avoid comments like mine? just a thought

Remember when photography was not about your gear and your composition and your photoshopping and your stylist and your makeup artist and people just captured fun images, compelling and confronting images and they had a connectable real and simple aspect to them?

You all sound like when art critics were bashing William Eggleston for his "non art" but now he is considered one of the greatest contributors to modern photography. What have any of you done?

poor girl, poor photographer. Maybe it's his best vision of Miley and a very realistic one though I don't like it

Pages