Free Worldwide Shipping on Orders Over $150.00 USD or more - Use Code: HBSHIP150
October 20, 2013 @ 08:37 AM
Zakwan Haris

Post: 8

Join Date: Jun 2013

Location: Malaysia

I dont know what to say man.

fresh immature kid.

October 20, 2013 @ 04:42 PM
Shanklin

Post: 9593

Join Date: Nov 2006

in what way?

http://kevinshanklin.com/ IF YOU HAVE A FFFOUND.COM INVITE MSG ME

October 20, 2013 @ 05:34 PM
laserdis

Post: 399

Join Date: Aug 2013

Location: Ooo

i think thats a stretch op
October 20, 2013 @ 06:14 PM
Jermaine Fowler

Post: 2

Join Date: Oct 2013

Location: Brooklyn

Andy was a pop painter. Terry takes photos. Great photos, but his impact and prolificness is outmatched. Yes Terry wears glasses, but thats about the only comparison. Nigga.
October 20, 2013 @ 10:23 PM
JruPowers

Post: 26

Join Date: Oct 2012

Location: Los Angeles, Califor...

Andy was gay, Terry isn't. Well, maybe.
October 21, 2013 @ 02:02 AM
laxlife1234

Post: 992

Join Date: Aug 2010

^Terry is Bi, maybe not sexually, but from his photos he has gotten with men. 

And there are two types of terry, the one everyone knows and the one where you need to sort through all the bullshit to find (ie. he takes some incredible quality photos if you dig deep enough). 

www.jacobskoglund.com | www.jacobsphotobooth.tumblr.com

October 22, 2013 @ 02:44 AM
Koven

Post: 3593

Join Date: Aug 2009

Terry is one of the most important photographers of this generation and birthed your style whether you want to admit it or not. 

Most fashion photography would still look like this if it wasnt for him. Which is still dope in its own way.  


all I do is sip espressos and listen to AZ -mrelllis.tumblr.com

October 22, 2013 @ 06:47 AM
nasmatic

Post: 919

Join Date: Sep 2012

whats special about this guy












October 22, 2013 @ 09:46 AM
2coor

Post: 56

Join Date: Nov 2010

Like Jermaine said that not the same art. There isn't same creativity between photo and painting even if Warhol was polaroid photographer too, but painter and artist in so different way of art. And Warhol is Warhol, can't have a new one.
(sorry hard for me to speak about that in english...)

- http://www.jeanchiegrave.tumblr.com/ myFilmPics. -WTD : Sup Collegiate Crewneck Sweater Green L. /. UrbanOut 15oz sz 31.

October 22, 2013 @ 09:07 PM
nasmatic

Post: 919

Join Date: Sep 2012

if you actually know anything about andy warhol then you should realize it's lady gaga who's trying to be the new warhol. that's why she lets terry take the naked pics among others.



October 22, 2013 @ 11:55 PM
Shanklin

Post: 9593

Join Date: Nov 2006

Like Jermaine said that not the same art. There isn't same creativity between photo and painting even if Warhol was polaroid photographer too, but painter and artist in so different way of art. And Warhol is Warhol, can't have a new one.
(sorry hard for me to speak about that in english...)
ehh i beg to differ. yea painting and photogrpahy are both 2 different mediums, but like most art mediums, they tend to cross boundaries.

http://www.neilkrug.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dora_Maar

http://chuckclose.com/

http://kevinshanklin.com/ IF YOU HAVE A FFFOUND.COM INVITE MSG ME

October 23, 2013 @ 12:52 AM
2coor

Post: 56

Join Date: Nov 2010

Yeah, his that for both. Just the compare.

- http://www.jeanchiegrave.tumblr.com/ myFilmPics. -WTD : Sup Collegiate Crewneck Sweater Green L. /. UrbanOut 15oz sz 31.

October 23, 2013 @ 09:11 PM
buffalowill

Post: 53

Join Date: Sep 2012

terry is shit.  anyone can prop a white background real talk.  warhol was visionary.  this is dumb

http://buffalowill.bigcartel.com/

October 24, 2013 @ 12:15 AM
99%Shit

Post: 3408

Join Date: Oct 2009

Location: Ontario

Warhol was a bum. Lichtenstein was that dude.

narsha.narsha.narsha

October 24, 2013 @ 12:15 AM
bernardtheblack

Post: 165

Join Date: Dec 2011

And there are two types of terry, the one everyone knows and the one where you need to sort through all the bullshit to find (ie. he takes some incredible quality photos if you dig deep enough). 
Like lil b?

I don't think the impact that Warhol and Richardson had in their respective fields is comparable. I don't think Warhol was that great either tho so  \_o_/


Like Jermaine said that not the same art. There isn't same creativity between photo and painting even if Warhol was polaroid photographer too, but painter and artist in so different way of art. And Warhol is Warhol, can't have a new one.
(sorry hard for me to speak about that in english...)
ehh i beg to differ. yea painting and photogrpahy are both 2 different mediums, but like most art mediums, they tend to cross boundaries.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think there are a different range of possibilities for art of a physical medium( painting, drawing, sculpting, #d modelling, bunch of other things since new tech and materials are being created so frequently) and photography. They sometimes over lap. I would say range of creativity and outcomes in the composition and execution of what you are looking at, trying to show, or create from your minds eye using  drawing, painting (I will exclude sculpture since we are talking about two dimensional work) or what ever, is much larger than that of photography(excluding what you can do in computer programs and 3d modelling because that is then photography + something else). In my mind I visualize it like a Venn diagram where one circle is much larger than the other.
 
 I could like something how it looks EXACTLY, want to paint it, but in a different color. The goal there would to be create what I'm seeing in a world where that atmosphere or all the objects seem to fit within a certain color range. A photographer could do the same thing with a filter. I find photo realistic paintings(specifically intended to be as life like as possible) because it does the same thing that photography does, of course with variation of a human that is unavoidable.
 
October 24, 2013 @ 03:48 PM
Shanklin

Post: 9593

Join Date: Nov 2006

^I think you're downplaying photography a lot...theres way more to photography than just snapping and composing a picture. You can do a lot more than what you think w/o the use of a computer as well. Google "surrealist photographers" and then tell me what you think. Earlier I linked Dora Maar because shes my favorite surrealist photographer, but everything shes done was in the darkroom. Also I think excluding the use of computers is pretty stupid, especially where we are in an time where digital reigns supreme. With your mindset, thats like saying a painter can't use colored pencils because that's "something else" lol.

With all of this being said, I think one can create just as much as other mediums with the minds eye if photography is their medium of choice. But what I will say is that photography in general is being thrown under the bus, and people like Terry Richardson is helping that imo. Kids generally see him and think "wow he's taking pictures of stars, I can be a photogtapher too". And theres nothing wrong with thinking that cause what Terry is doing is definitely photography, but it's not the only aspect of it. I suggest you buy Kodaks book "creative darkroom processes" and takwe a darkroom class and experiment. You'll have a blast with not only developing and making prints, but also with learning cool techniques like split toning, hand coloring, making photograms, etc...

But to answer the OPs question, Andy helped expand onto the art world and broke grounds with his medium whereas Terry is creating boundaries and limiting his.

http://kevinshanklin.com/ IF YOU HAVE A FFFOUND.COM INVITE MSG ME

October 24, 2013 @ 07:52 PM
SHARKlN

Post: 5135

Join Date: Apr 2012

Andy Warhol did more in 15 minutes than Terry has done over his entire heir inherited career.
October 24, 2013 @ 08:57 PM
GOLF

suspended

Post: 406

Join Date: Jan 2013

terry is shit.  anyone can prop a white background real talk.  warhol was visionary.  this is dumb
so wheres your gq pics?
October 25, 2013 @ 07:33 AM
bacontaco

Post: 262

Join Date: May 2011

Location: ATL

andy warhol was a culture icon.
terry is a fashion/editorial photographer.

andy warhol affected a world, terry is affecting only photographers, and photographers (sorry) are never really remembered outside of photography. people like leibovitz, cartier-bresson, avedon, etc. are all titans in photography, but i would bet you good money your parents (unless they are involved in art) don't know who they are.

however, terry clearly inspires a lot of people on this board because a lot of you do bullshit overexposed shots of mundane stuff like him.

http://kylekukshtel.com

October 25, 2013 @ 11:23 AM
2coor

Post: 56

Join Date: Nov 2010


Like

Jermaine said that not the same art. There isn't same creativity
between photo and painting even if Warhol was polaroid photographer too,
but painter and artist in so different way of art. And Warhol is
Warhol, can't have a new one.
(sorry hard for me to speak about that in english...)
ehh
i beg to differ. yea painting and photogrpahy are both 2 different
mediums, but like most art mediums, they tend to cross boundaries.


sure, but not with same power. Is that 20 or more years past for Warhol art, so Terry's art can't have same power maybe.

- http://www.jeanchiegrave.tumblr.com/ myFilmPics. -WTD : Sup Collegiate Crewneck Sweater Green L. /. UrbanOut 15oz sz 31.

October 25, 2013 @ 02:40 PM
Shanklin

Post: 9593

Join Date: Nov 2006

Word i can agree w/ that bacontaco. And who hasn't imitated that style haha.



Btw this a good discussion, we need more topics like this in the art forum.

http://kevinshanklin.com/ IF YOU HAVE A FFFOUND.COM INVITE MSG ME

October 25, 2013 @ 04:29 PM
TRIED BY 12

Post: 21

Join Date: Aug 2013

http://oldterry.tumblr.com

Pics from his books.
October 25, 2013 @ 05:19 PM
2coor

Post: 56

Join Date: Nov 2010

Yep Shanklin. ^)
Schminx, I don't if you're speaking about that but, you said what do you want, but T.Richardson is what he's to day, only.

- http://www.jeanchiegrave.tumblr.com/ myFilmPics. -WTD : Sup Collegiate Crewneck Sweater Green L. /. UrbanOut 15oz sz 31.

October 25, 2013 @ 05:48 PM
laxlife1234

Post: 992

Join Date: Aug 2010

Terry is one of the most important photographers of this generation and birthed your style whether you want to admit it or not. 

Most fashion photography would still look like this if it wasnt for him. Which is still dope in its own way.  
This directed towards me? 

If so, Terry is influential, yes, but he most certainly did not birth my style. People on forums, flickr, tumblr, etc. have birthed my style if anything. I never really bothered looking into famous photographers until I actually started working with models. 

That being said, I can appreciate the value placed on his direct flash photos, but I think Juergen Teller should also be put into this debate. I really do like some of Terry's work, but for a professional photographer he's far too inconsistent and it may not even be that, but because he posts what he posts it's too much bullshit. 

www.jacobskoglund.com | www.jacobsphotobooth.tumblr.com

October 25, 2013 @ 08:09 PM
bananaoke

Post: 227

Join Date: May 2012

terry is just some over-hyped pervert using photography as an excuse to satisfy his perverted needs.
October 25, 2013 @ 11:19 PM
goldANDsacks

Post: 3159

Join Date: Jul 2009

if anyone is " the new Warhol", i'd probably say it's Banksy. and that's only because Warhol's screen prints can be compared to Banksy's stencils.

Terry Richardson is a famous photographer, but his pictures aren't being auctioned at art galleries. if anything Richardson is probably like "the new David Lachapelle"
October 26, 2013 @ 01:03 AM
2coor

Post: 56

Join Date: Nov 2010

if anyone is " the new Warhol", i'd probably say it's Banksy. and that's only because Warhol's screen prints can be compared to Banksy's stencils.

Terry Richardson is a famous photographer, but his pictures aren't being auctioned at art galleries. if anything Richardson is probably like "the new David Lachapelle"
Ok for Banksy with his techniks...
But for Lachapelle, i'm not agree, he create a new "délire", who can recognize him everytime. Not same stuff.
But I get what you say.

- http://www.jeanchiegrave.tumblr.com/ myFilmPics. -WTD : Sup Collegiate Crewneck Sweater Green L. /. UrbanOut 15oz sz 31.

October 28, 2013 @ 07:42 AM
nasmatic

Post: 919

Join Date: Sep 2012

if anyone is " the new Warhol", i'd probably say it's Banksy. and that's only because Warhol's screen prints can be compared to Banksy's stencils.
banksy is similar in terms of his art and the concept behind it but if you understood the full extent of what andy warhol did you'd realize it goes WAY beyond the art he produced. the closest thing we have to a new warhol in popular culture is lady gaga. she owes half her success to being inspired by him/ripping him off.

this documentary explains it all. just watch it. you don't have to watch the whole thing but halfway through the first video you'll see what i'm talking about. 

cool

http://vimeo.com/64603995
http://vimeo.com/71546767
October 28, 2013 @ 02:12 PM
2coor

Post: 56

Join Date: Nov 2010

Thanks for links.

- http://www.jeanchiegrave.tumblr.com/ myFilmPics. -WTD : Sup Collegiate Crewneck Sweater Green L. /. UrbanOut 15oz sz 31.

October 28, 2013 @ 10:32 PM
Otacon

Post: 339

Join Date: Nov 2010

Location: Queens

anyone know where i can find an archive of his old photos. oldterry.tumblr.com got deleted =[

Please login first to reply.
Back To Top