Sunday, September 6, 2009

Where's Abbey Lee? Full frontal and dogging for Terry

purple via modelcouture

We recently talked about the upcoming Fall/Winter 2009 edition of PURPLE FASHION magazine, for which Abbey Lee Kershaw posed nude alongside Magdalena Frackowiak and Eniko Mihalik for photographer Terry Richardson. Editor Olivier Zahm, who has a reputation that is almost as sleazy as Richardson’s, took a sneaky behind-the-scenes studio shot of the girls mid-pose, revealing the cleft of Kershaw’s buttocks. Well Zahm’s sneaky studio shot pales into insignificance when compared with the complete editorial which has now hit the stands. In it, Kershaw is pictured flashing her breasts, pashing mate Catherine McNeil’s former gf Freja Beha Erichsen and simulating 'doggie-style' with Frackowiak. And in one full frontal shot that is more in the line of Penthouse than your average prestige fashion editorial, readers get a very clear look at Kershaw’s genitalia.Warning: NSFW

After PURPLE’s “beauty shoot” video (below) that recently did the rounds with topless Suvi Koponen and Hanne Gaby Odiele engaged in a mock sado maso tryst, complete with harnesses and restraints, you have to wonder has fashion modelling morphed into the new porn - just with better-looking actors? And does that make model agents the new pimps?

In notes accompanying the editorial, Zahm admits that permission was not sought from the respective agencies to shoot the models nude and that he and Richardson "secretly" planned to recreate Helmut Newton's nudes in the editorial.

UPDATE 07/09. Here is an official statement from Kershaw's Sydney-based mother agency, Chic Management:

"CHIC represents many international models and respects the decisions these models make with regards to the campaigns and editorials they undertake in overseas markets. This editorial was booked out of NEXT Management".

purple via modelcouture

Click on the following image to see precisely what the magazine's readers are seeing. Kershaw is on the right-hand side:

purple via the fashion spot

Beauty shoot by Paola Kudacki from Purple Magazine on Vimeo.


Anonymous said...


Rose said...

So what? Both magazine editorials and mainstream fashion have been influenced by porn for a number of years now. If anything, this is boring, and late.

Style On Track said...

Oh well if you've got a great body, why not flaunt it in a fashion mag rather then a porno mag?

Anonymous said...

All those scans were posted first on TheFashionSpot by user candlebougie and NOT on modelcouture. I hate sites that don´t give proper credit.... it´s so much work to produce flawless scans like these. here´s the original source:

A Colourful Guy Drowning said...

While I don't have a problem with nudity or sex, I will say this, if Zahm and Richardson were pedophiles they'd be accused of grooming.

Anonymous said...

I really don´t think Abbey Kershaw´s management expected so much nudity before the shoot.

This is from the text accompanying the editorial: "And this actually happened organically during the shoot, and WITHOUT ASKING PERMISSION OF THE MODEL´S AGENTS, who really don´t fancy nudity that much these days."

here is the scan:



I like the photos. It looks like they had fun doing the shoot.
there's nothing shocking about the photos either. I find they run in the same vein as Helmut Newton and Guy Bourdin.

Anonymous said...

Whenever you publish imagery such as this you're obviously exposing more people to it. If people want to buy magazines with stories of this nature that's their business. If models or photographers want to express themselves in this way that's their choice.

Are you rightfully the person to be standing up as a moral guardian when you are personally exposing this series to others? It seems hypocritical because you just appear to be trying to get a reaction from your readers and thus more hits to your blog. The youngest women in this shoot is 21 so please can you just drop the outrage as this shoot and possibly Purple as a whole is not for you. Were you less uptight in the past or was Purple Sexe any less shocking? CS

Isaac Likes said...

Patty - Purple didn't seem to feel the need to photoshop out the nipple ring..

Anonymous said...

Patty is just raising pertinent thought provoking questions about the line between porn and fashion photography.

These shots are more Penthouse than Helmut Newton. In fact the genitalia shots in Penthouse would probably be more interesting and quirky and artistic.

Helmut Newton was all about powerful women by the way whereas this is just good old fashioned misogynistic voyeurism.

Anonymous said...

... and to think that the Australian press worked itself into a frothing frenzy of moral out rage over these pics

but has barely a ripple to say about Vogue Aus sapphic fantasy or this? .. go figure

Emma said...

Its funny how the press gets outraged over some editorials - breaking out the pitchforks, lynching ropes etc - but then completely ignores others. One has to wonder how they would react to the Purple spread.

That said, I would much rather look at these than the images on Cole Mohrs blog..

MISS BANG said...

there was never a distinct line between the fashion industry and the porn industry in the 21st century..

Patty Huntington said...

anon @ 10.43 -

the RUSSH controversy centred on the underage element. there were bottles of moet in shot, implied sexual activity, with both models under 18 and nudity. the australian classifications board has an issue with the depiction of minors and sexual activity, investigated RUSSH, but later cleared the magazine. I see no comparison to the greg kadel shoot in vogue aus, which involved two 20+ women and a few bare breasts in what has widely been viewed as a very tasteful editorial.

re anon @ 11.31pm yesterday. i write about fashion and modelling, with a particular emphasis on australian models. i have clocked most of kershaw's gigs over the past 18 months. some new imagery is up for discussion so i am illustrating it under fair use terms for the purposes of news and review. i included a NSFW caveat. i do draw the line with some images. you will note i merely linked to the shot of richardson being given a hand job by one of his less "uptight" female photographic subjects in the following post:

the issue is published. zahm has been plugging the hell out of it on his blog. it is well and truly out there in the public domain. this editorial is up for scrutiny, ditto the modus operandi of operators such as zahm and richardson, particularly richardson, who is one of the world's highest-paid fashion photographers and wields an enormous amount of power. off the record agents use words such as "disgusting" to describe some of his work. the same agents seem reluctant to criticise his work on the record.

it's not the full frontal nudity which is the issue here. from memory kershaw has shot at least one other full frontal nude, in the surf - and there was no detail. same goes for the image of frackowiak in the middle of this purple shot. it's front on, you can see nothing other than pubic hair, even though all three models are standing with their legs apart. i would however put money on the shot of eniko mihalik (L) having been airbrushed:

by his own admission zahm did not run the nudity by the womens’ respective managers. on the one hand he claims it evolved “organically”, but also admits that he and richardson sought to recreate helmut newton’s nudes. so it sounds like they knew exactly what they wanted to do - but failed to communicate that to the minders. is it likely that if he had said to next management "is it OK to take and publish a clear shot of your client’s labia?", that the agency would have agreed to it? was kershaw consulted? would she have had any legal rights after the shot was in the can and thenceforth the intellectual property of richardson/zahm? unlikely. if she had objected to it, might she have been blackballed by richardson and zahm in future? ditto the agency, which reps many other models. what does "organically" mean anyway? were alcohol and drugs by any chance involved?

porn stars go to work knowing that they are going to engage in sexual activity and be featured in explicit material. are fashion models - who, although over 18 in this instance, nevertheless remain very young and relatively inexperienced – always perfectly happy about participating in these sorts of images or do they do whatever richardson, zahm and co say because they don't want to rock the boat?

increasingly, we are seeing evidence of an abuse of power in the modelling business. highly-sexualised (not to mention topless) shots of 13/14 year-old monika jagaciak made many cringe. sara ziff's documentary 'picture me' discusses one model who claims to have been indecently assaulted during a shoot, while another accuses a photographer of stripping during a casting session and asking her to hold his penis. she obliged, was booked for the job but later turned the job down and says she was never booked again by that photographer. so far he remains anonymous. why is he being protected?

FYI I have now received a response from chic management (see updated post above), who have passed the buck to next in new york.

george said...

holy hell some people need to chill out. there was no hypocrisy in this blog whatsoever frockwriter was merely making a comment on what now seems to be a controversial shoot.

Anonymous said...

I have worked on set with Terry Richardson and his team and found them all to be highly professional. I think you may forget that it's not just 3 naked models and Terry and Olivier alone in the room, there is hair, make-up, digital, fashion editor and numerous assistants always around. Fashion is a business and these images are created to stir up controversy and create debate. It's not real life people!

A Colourful Guy Drowning said...

@anon 6:15AM: Yeah, we all know how the PR game works. However, they are much better ways to promote one's self beside always spewing negative, seedy images all over the place and being a magnet for controversy.

So, Terry, Olivier and Assoc. are "professional" perverts. Big f**king deal! And, if you really stood behind their professionalism, as you seem to be claiming to, why the cloak of anonymity?

Patty Huntington said...

anon @ 6.15AM:

it's terrific to know from a studio insider that terry richardson runs a professional shop at all times.

if by any chance however you are one of the by all accounts numerous studio insiders who have been expected to provide him with blowjobs while on the job, then i dare say your credibility as a character referee may be somewhat limited:

Anonymous said...

Wow, You guys are well on your way to bringing down Terry Richardson and Co. Actually, it just reads as a vendetta based purely on articles you've read and your reaction to some imagery. I suppose you know Richardson really well as an individual as well? It's obvious that these images are meant to provoke reaction. A debate is interesting, crazed proclamations and OTT questions such as "were alcohol and drugs by any chance involved?" are less so. These are not the thought provoking questioning we expect from you.

1.52pm: There's also nothing wrong with posting an anonymous comment on a blog. I'd prefer to read anon. words that those of a smug looking pain in a skivvy who blogs about themselves (whilst not appearing to do much else).

What do you think of Richardson's other output such his beautiful stories in Vogue Paris? You can dwell on all that you see as a negative but what about those of influence (such as Miuccia Prada, Emmanuelle Alt, Anna Wintour, Gucci, US Harper's Bazaar) who would no doubt be fully aware of everything that Richardson does—all his filth and disgusting perversity—yet still choose to work with him?

Yes, I'm sure those individuals who make the ultimate, final decision on everything to do with their magazine or advertising: Anna Wintour and Miuccia Prada have it wrong and here you are, all so right. CS

The Calvin Show said...

I think it's a bit much but hell...more power to the models, photographer and magazine for publishing some very racy photos.

Patty Huntington said...

anon @ 12.50AM (who uses the "CS" signoff, so i gather it's the same commenter as before) -

the interesting thing about your libertarian argument is that while you support richardson's artistic license, you are intolerant of any critical reportage of him. you're a fan of porn, but don't believe in a free press.

apart from a very brief interview i once did with richardson for the SMH, i don't know him and have had no contact or personal dealings with him. there is no vendetta. he goes out of his way to court controversy, so he is presumably well-accustomed to - and proud of - the flack. what possible difference would it make if i knew him personally? i call it as i see it and his work speaks for itself, ditto his on the record comments in media interviews. it's not idle gossip and speculation that he has procured sexual services from studio assistants, do your research, it's on the public record. he also documented it and exhibited the images.

he told hintmag that he likes to "push images as far as i can and still get them run. it's a challenge to see what i can slip in" and that the casting session is "the big grill session to see who's comfortable. a lot of people are exhibitionists once you get them going".

wintour, prada and co are not industry watchers. they are part of the industry. do they know or care how the photographers who shoot for them achieve their results? what's OTT about asking did an editor and photographer supply alcohol and drugs to help models "get going" on a job? i lived in paris for three years. i have personally witnessed drugs in the media workplace there.

leaving the fashion elite aside for a moment, just a reminder that at the bottom of the industry - ie the workforce - some models are at the moment attempting to unionise themselves, in part to provide protection against sexual exploitation on jobs. evidently they feel there is a problem. one model has made a documentary which accuses one photographer of undressing during a casting session and requesting that a model "grab his cock and twist it real hard".

what a wowser for objecting to having to do that in a day at the office.

A Colourful Guy Drowning said...

"I'd prefer to read anon. words that those of a smug looking pain in a skivvy who blogs about themselves (whilst not appearing to do much else)" - CS

Since Patty dealt with your other points rather well I feel no need to address those.

As for your attacks on my person: When I allow you to have some sort of authority with me, which will never happen, then I'll consider your critiques of my character, fashion sense, work ethic and blogging style of importance. Until then... ;)

HotCaviar said...

Well said Patty, that's one hell of an argument... I couldn't agree more and truly believe the models shouls unionise as a matter of protection from exploitation... I can only imagine how easily it is to be swayed into these shots from very powerful photographers, I know how influenced I was at that age... putting it out there for public comment is indeed a right and may freedom of the press live on...

Alyx said...

I have less of a problem with Terry Richardson than with a lot of other photographers. At least Richardson is 100% honest about his sleaziness and sexual proclivities, and from all accounts I've heard refuses to ever, ever work with underage models. I've also heard stories from a couple of models who shot with him that he was happy to work within their comfort zones, which were very different for different girls.
While Richardson's work, and language in interviews are not to everyone's taste, his overt, up front sexuality means that those who would not feel comfortable working with him know immediately to keep away.
This is in contrast to other photographers who, while they may retain mild mannered public persona's, actually do exploit, assault and abuse models (including underage girls).
The model who discussed being assaulted on a shoot was 14 at the time the incident took place, which means the perpetrator probably had an image that was squeaky-clean compared to Richardson's. If the snapper was known for his sexy or controversial work, he wouldn't have been shooting a child in the first place.
I think Richardson offers something that is very rare in fashion: transparency. It is better to be clear about the fact that you are a bit of a perv than to keep it quiet, then spring it on an unsuspecting teenager while she's mid-shoot.

Patty Huntington said...

alyx -

yes terry richardson states on his website that models need to be over 18 and provide ID on the day of the shoot. he's not stupid. the age of the girl at the time of the alleged sexual assault was 16 i gather, which one must assume eliminates richardson from contention in that regard. every other "top" fashion photographer remains under suspicion however, because that's how the photographer has been described. FYI that anecdote has been relayed in interviews about the film, not the film itself, because the model changed her mind and requested that her footage be pulled from the final cut - the night before the world premiere in fact.

so that leaves the identity of the second photographer. let's just clarify one point here - and leave terry richardson out of it for the moment.

is it acceptable in your books for any photographer to demand that a model "grab his cock and twist it real hard" during a casting session, provided that everyone in the room is over the age of 18?

Alyx said...

I think in all circumstances requesting that a model "grab and twist" in a casting session in order to get a job is unacceptable, even in the pornography industry that sort of request is unreasonable when it isn't for the camera. I know Richardson has spoken openly about engaging in sex at castings, and while I think that that sort of behavior is exploitative, I applaud his honesty about it. I've mentioned this before, but I think that, were it not for Richardson, there would be a lot more doubt about the sort of thing that sometimes goes on at photoshoots and castings. Having a man willing to confess that he engages in that sort of behavior lends credence to the stories young girls tell about it taking place. I don't like it, but I think silence is even worse.
I've also heard plenty of stories of models offering such services without being prompted, which I find similarly sickening, and while I understand that selling oneself sexually is generally driven by a pressure to succeed, it certainly doesn't help anyone's cause to engage in that kind of bargaining.
This is a problem that plagues many industries though, from acting to modeling to retail (remember that story about the American Apparel sales assistant who was hired after sticking her hand into her underpants, wiping it on her manager's face and telling him she'd be his "personal dirty whore"?).
I think this is an issue that won't be resolved until we have more respect for women in general, and I think part of fostering that sort of respect comes from acknowledging on both sides that this sort of activity is going on.

Anonymous said...

It's good to read comments that are a response to the general dislike of Richardson and his work within this blog. Alyx's opinion reads as the most astute opinion to me.

Why are people with a differing point of view ridiculed here? Someone gives an insight into the process of a shoot (which is pointing out something important) and they are dismissed with sarcastic retorts such as Patty Huntingtons... anon @ 6.15AM: it's terrific to know from a studio insider that terry richardson runs a professional shop at all times.

How is this fueling well rounded debate anyway when it just reads as nasty. The comment "you're a fan of porn, but don't believe in a free press" could be leveled back at frockwriter and if editorials such as the one we're discussing are in the public domain so to are blogs and the opinions expressed within them.

Patty Huntington said...

there are 27 comments on this post. give or take a half dozen neutral comments, over half of the remaining comments have been in support of richardson and/or critical of me. i’m not quite sure what your definition of a balanced argument is, but apparently it’s one which embraces zero opposition to your own viewpoint. just a reminder that i’m the one who is clearing all the comments.

you are perfectly at liberty (within reason) to voice your opinion here. feel free to deploy whatever evidence and/or wit is at your disposal in so doing. or just shoot the messenger, whichever is more convenient. but here's the thing. i’ve got a right to respond. a studio insider mentioned that richardson runs a professional studio. i pointed out that some of richardson’s studio co-workers have been photographed – by richardson - giving him blowjobs. it's a fair call.

just generally speaking again about the fashion business, its powerbrokers and those who work under them – because of course we still don’t know which photographer asked the model to grab his cock and twist it hard, which is obviously completely honest and transparent - FYI it was the photographer’s studio assistant who allegedly relayed that request. this makes the studio assistant complicit in what in any other industry would most likely be viewed as a clearcut case of sexual harassment in the workplace and a violation of civil liberties (in the US you will find that this includes the right to dignity and personal integrity in the workplace). i'm not sure that an artist’s right to unfettered creative expression overrides the rights of everybody else. in the unlikely event that a case ever went to court, and the assistant was called to the witness stand, perhaps they could argue, “it's not real life people!”.

Anonymous said...

I think the point- made so clearly by alyx and supported by whomever said they have worked with him- is that he runs 'a professional studio' in that though sexual activity has been known to go on, it doesn't really seem to be of a variety that is forced upon models, with or without drugs and/or alcohol as you are speculating. It seems to be more like studio assistants (like the one in the story you linked) or unestablished models desperate to 'make it' who are the ones doing it of their own volition. That doesn't make it right, in fact I think it borders on willing self-prostitution, especially if they then get work out of it, but it does highlight the fact that it would be consensual sex between two adults of age, not taking advantage of underage girls with the use of substances. why would mr richardson need to do that anyway, when he's so obviously got girls (whatever their motivations) throwing themselves at him? willing to offer their 'services' *ahem* and willing to be photographed doing so? I completely agree with whoever said it's obviously the unnamed photographers who DO work with underage girls and remain protected that are the ones we need to be looking at... not attempting to do that by drawing attention to the work of someone who doesn't seem to legally- irregardless of taste- have done anything wrong. Even if the agent's of the girls in this purple shoot were not aware of how the story would look (which i doubt, it's TERRY and it's PURPLE, both always attempting to be shocking and raunchy, they would know their industry), the girls ARE all over 21 and I doubt would have agreed to doing anything they didn't want to do. After all, it's not like any of them are newbies trying out a casting, saying no to a couple of poses on ONE shoot with terry richardson wouldn't damage their careers, as they're all already at the top of their game.

Patty Huntington said...

anon @ 8.33pm 15/9 -

just to clarify, according to sena cech in 'picture me', the leading photographer asked her to undress during the casting, then proceeded to undress himself. the studio assistant then relayed the request to grab the photographer's penis and reportedly "egged her on".

of course another young, inexperienced nobody might have acted differently when confronted - and not out in public and under scrutiny, but behind closed doors - with one of the most respected and highest-paid people in the business, who was most likely old enough to be her father and flanked at the time by a coterie of studio lackeys. had the photographer reportedly not only taken off his clothes and potentially also exposed himself during the casting session, but also asked the girl - via a lackey - to touch his dick, this other girl might have had the presence of mind and courage to tell both of them to get fracked and then report them to the authorities. better still, report them to the authorities and jump straight on the phone to a major news outlet to blow the whistle.

you are, of course, entitled to your opinion. and that opinion is i gather - and please correct me if i'm wrong - that there is something remotely approaching an equitable balance of power within this scenario. and that the girl's obedience in doing the photographer's bidding somehow equates to "consensual sex between two adults of age".

sech says she obliged, but later felt so revolted by the incident, she turned the job down. and was never booked again by the photographer.

so much for the economic benefits of "willing self-prostitution".

Anonymous said...

Re: Yes I will correct your interpretation of my above comment:

1) in no way am i talking about the "picture me" incident, that is not the topic at hand here, as we do not know who that was. the topic is terry's conduct when shooting stories like this.
2) however, in reference to the above incident, most people who know him or have worked with him maintain that doesn't seem to be the way he would procure sex as,
3) there are MANY girls who throw themselves at him, without provocation and whom are of age. Not a case of "obedience in doing the photographer's bidding", but who literally, seek him out of their own volition and sleep with him in the hopes of furthering their career...
4) though i think such behaviour is disgusting, it is a moral choice, and not illegal. and unfortunately, can happen in ANY industry.

Anonymous said...

The off-putting "grab his cock and twist it real hard" quote is being repeated again and again through the comments here and now seems to be off topic.

Picture Me was covered in another post and as unsettling as it is, it should not be referred to again and again when people are expressing their opinion (or defending) Terry Richardson's Purple story. This series is evidently not to everyone's taste but we have exhausted the argument that this exploits anyone involved. Please can we stop the baiting...

Dogging said...

Ummm, interesting. Has anyone else here tried dogging? It started in the UK but now seems to be taking over the world.

Blog Archive