I've long been a fan of the "precocious" Ms. Gevinson. I appreciate her idealism, because it's one some relic of which I hope to still have somewhere in my jaded, battered bag of bones. Her diatribe on the Terry Richardson issue is really quite on point, and I applaud her for writing it, especially given the combination of her spotlight and the early stage of her fashion career.
I don't find Terry's work particularly compelling. Glamorous people against a glistening, all-white background a fun picture make, of course. And he always delivers an appealing product for his corporate clients. And I'm sure there's some artistic value to some of his work. And I'm even willing to allow the notion that the visualization of his sexual desires carries with it an intended commentary on society every once in a while. But mostly, it's gross and abusive. Age of consent this, age of consent that, but it really comes down to artistic responsibility. What does consent really mean when an 18-year old girl, broke and desperate for a touch of fashion fairydust, finds herself in an aggressive studio and handed the option of "Appease the superstar photographer" or leave?