"'Is Terry Richardson an Artist or a Predator?' wonders New York Magazine. Phrasing the proposition in that way — as an either-or binary — is not only insultingly reductive, it's also wildly misleading: as though it's possible that the end product justifies the sexual coercion that created it, or that a respected photographer isn't capable of preying on the women who pose for him...Despite what McInnes and Bolotow and Richardson's bevy of celebrity admirers may say, the fact …that Richardson has a history of working with models who are not aware that they'll be asked to pose naked or, you know, touch his genitals is a big f-ing deal. At one point, [NYMag's] Wallace notes that there are now many 'culturally engaged people, many of them young, who reject the sophisticated titillation that once greeted Richardson's work, seeing predation instead of transgression.' He writes that this 'is perplexing to the photographer, who finds himself maligned as repugnant for being the same person who was once broadly celebrated.' This is a pretty damn specious way of looking at public rejection of Richardson's work: people aren't changing their views on the 'sophisticated titillation' of his photos. They're learning that many of the women in them didn't consent to it." - Callie Beusman, Jezebel