Herb Ritts RIP

[Guest fukamarine]

>What's with this business of photographer Herb Ritts

>supposedly dying of "complications from pneumonia, [as] his

>friend Stephen Huvane, a Hollywood publicist, said." Aren't

>we beyond that now? Didn't he in life raise money for AIDS

>causes? What's with the throwback to 20 years past upon his

>death?

 

When I read the announcement I immediately thought it was AIDS that he had died from. However, if his partner wanted to announce the cause of death in a more gentle manner, I have no problem with that. If it causes him less pain to say it was from "complications from pneumonia" then we should accept that and not add to his grief by picking apart his description. We all have to deal with the loss of a loved one in our own way.

 

fukamarine

[Brianfix2002]

He died from complications from pneuamonia. End of story. Don't people respect privacy anymore.

[Chuck50]

It may well be true most people never actually die from what ails them, I;e: cancer or whatever it is something else that taked them down in the end. HUGS CHuck

[ad rian]

What's with this business of photographer Herb Ritts supposedly dying of "complications from pneumonia, [as] his friend Stephen Huvane, a Hollywood publicist, said." Aren't we beyond that now? Didn't he in life raise money for AIDS causes? What's with the throwback to 20 years past upon his death?

[phage]

The right to privacy does not confer a right to lie, or in this case, speak half-truths. Virtually no one but the elderly die of pneumonia unless it is AIDS related pneumonia, so it begs ad rian’s original question…aren’t we beyond that now? Apparently not. The stigma attached to AIDS is still very much present for some of those left behind.

 

People can and will handle these things in whatever way they choose, but I simply can’t imagine losing a loved one and then being ashamed of how they died. To me that implies shame about how they lived and that’s very sad.

[Guest Les]

My sympathy goes to the Ritts-Huvane families.

I know one is not to speak ill of the dead but I'll do it anyways. Mr. Ritts 'talent' was

mostly the product of self promotion. His 'art' was almost always either too studied or too poorly lit or both.

Examples of his prize winning stuff:

http://www.greatmodernpictures.com/ritts01lg.jpg

 

and his first claim to fame were his shots of a young Richard Gere.

http://www.mfa.org/exhibitions/ritts/images/gere.jpg

[Huey]

>What's with this business of photographer Herb Ritts

>supposedly dying of "complications from pneumonia, [as] his

>friend Stephen Huvane, a Hollywood publicist, said." Aren't

>we beyond that now? Didn't he in life raise money for AIDS

>causes? What's with the throwback to 20 years past upon his

>death?

 

Talk about being too personal! You must be a sick person to A) assume he died of AIDS without any knowledge B) wanting for some selfish reason that if he did have AIDS it be announced publically C) a completely unrelated bystander passing public judgment on a person and a situation you have zero knowledge of.

 

This is the worse, self indulgent post I've ever seen here. Your motive is only to give yourself something to feel better about. You are an insenstive asshole. You should cease posting here immediately.

[Guest fukamarine]

>This is the worse, self indulgent post I've ever seen here.

>Your motive is only to give yourself something to feel better

>about. You are an insenstive asshole. You should cease

>posting here immediately.

 

You think?

 

fukamarine

[Guest fukamarine]

>My sympathy goes to the Ritts-Huvane families.

>I know one is not to speak ill of the dead but I'll do it

>anyways.

 

Why would you say you know you shouldn't speak ill of the dead and then proceed to do so - after offering sympathy to the families?

 

Did what you said make them feel any better or was it just to boost your own feeling of self-importance.

 

You imply that Ritts was a man of little talent, other than that of self-promotion. That may be your opinion but I beg to differ.

 

I feel he was one of those able to raise photograpy to an art form. True, his pictures didn't feature cum spurting out of a hard cock, or someone taking it up the ass, but it made them no less erotic.

 

I enjoy picture of purient interest as much as the next guy but that was not what Ritts was all about. I'd hate to read your comments when Bruce Weber dies!

 

fukamarine

[ad rian]

>>This is the worse, self indulgent post I've ever seen

>here.

>>Your motive is only to give yourself something to feel

>better

>>about. You are an insenstive asshole. You should cease

>>posting here immediately.

 

Hmmh, is that the pot calling the kettle black? I think Phage summarized my sentiments well on the substance of the post though.

[VaHawk]

When people make statements that outside of AIDS infected people that only old people die of pneumonia, I would like to see a reference to some kind of medical research to support their statement, otherwise they are just "shooting from the hip". Pneumonia can turn deadly very quickly in anyone, especially if it goes untreated. What about all the infants who have died of pneumonia? Besides as Chuck implies, AIDS does not cause death, only another medical condition brought on by a weakened immune system due to AIDS is the cause of death. Or I suppose the actual cause of death was that the heart stopped beating or taking it all the way back, Life caused the death as without life, death would not exist. So the obituary was correct, pneumonia caused the death, regardless of what caused the pneumonia.

[Guest NakedTony]

<So the obituary was correct, pneumonia caused the death, regardless of what caused the pneumonia.

 

AIDS is NOT a disease. It is a syndrome and a "collection" of associated diseases caused by a virus. Previous statements are absolutely correct that you do not die from AIDS -- you die from a disease associated with (or part of) AIDS.

 

If they wanted to add more specific info they could have said "pneumonia associated with AIDS". But, I see no reason why they have to list AIDS in an obituary. I see nothing wrong with what was listed and firmly believe every family has a right to decide how much information to disclose.

 

Aren't we past having to make an obituary a politically-correct statement? It's not as if we still have to fight for AIDS-related medical research or adequate treatment. That battle was won many years ago thanks to some very courageous people.

[phage]

> You should cease posting here immediately.

 

Such royal proclamations! Who died and left you the tiara and scepter?

 

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s probably a fucking duck. Let's see...a gay man in his fifties dies of pneumonia. Do the math.

 

If there isn’t still a HUGE stigma attached to an AIDS death, why would it be too “personal” and “passing judgement” and “sick” to discuss it. Would your panties be in a twist if he had had heart disease?

[phage]

>It's not as if we still have to

>fight for AIDS-related medical research or adequate treatment.

>That battle was won many years ago thanks to some very

>courageous people.

 

If you believe that, you are hopelessly out of touch and part of the growing number of complacent gay men who think everything is under control. Do you know anyone who is positive? Anyone who is failing on the cocktail?

 

What is your idea of adequate? Side effects that don’t kill you before the virus?

[+ Charlie]

Since when does the fact that a gay man raises money for AIDS causes automatically equate to having AIDS? When someone I know dies of pneumonia, I wonder if it was AIDS-related, but I don't take it for granted. My best friend was HIV+ but died of cancer, and even his doctors weren't sure how or whether the two were connected. If his family preferred to announce the cause of death as cancer, that was their business--they had no moral obligation to say, "Oh, and he had AIDS, too!"

 

You seem to be presuming a lot about Ritts on very little evidence; even if the goal of keeping the public aware of the ravages of a terrible disease in our community is important, playing fast and loose with the facts about an individual is not the appropriate way to do it.

[Guest NakedTony]

>...you are hopelessly out of touch and part of the growing number of complacent gay men who think everything is under control. Do you know anyone who is positive? Anyone who is failing on the cocktail?

>

>What is your idea of adequate? Side effects that don’t kill you before the virus?

 

I currently know well-over 100 HIV+ people. I have had over 400 friends die to AIDS-related diseases. You're know nothing about me or my history with AIDS if you think I'm part of the uninformed.

 

I am neither out of touch nor complacent. I classify myself as a realist. There is currently more money spent on AIDS research than on any other disease including cancer. We can't expect all other medical research to stop and concentrate only on AIDS.

 

Yes, I do know people for whom the cocktail is not adequate. But I know hundreds more that have lived 10+ years because of the cocktail.

 

There is no 100% cure for any disease. Research on AIDS has not stopped and is still going ahead. But it can't be the only disease that requires research.

 

My father and his 5 brothers all have prostate cancer. Every male family member older than myself has prostate cancer. My family has a history of heart disease that does not respond to "normal" treatment. These are areas too that require medical research. AIDS is not the only thing that we need to research.

 

I would be outraged if AIDS research was not being funded. But it is receiving millions of dollars each year. I firmly believe that the incidence of AIDS would significantly decrease if people actually practiced "safer sex" methods in their relationships. We have the ability to minimize our personal risk of getting AIDS. Given that we can protect ourselves, I strongly feel that money for AIDS research is adequately proportioned with other major diseases.

[+ deej]

>Since when does the fact that a gay man raises money for AIDS

>causes automatically equate to having AIDS? When someone I

>know dies of pneumonia, I wonder if it was AIDS-related, but I

>don't take it for granted.

 

I generally make the assumption as well, although I don't attach any particular stigma to it.

 

But it points to an important trend. 20 years ago, the press (at least the gay press) was chock full of obituaries listing "AIDS-related" causes. These have all but disappeared. EVERYONE dies from something else.

 

Mentions of AIDS-related deaths have declined just as the infection rate has increased. It has nearly become an invisible infection in the gay "community" (there's a better word but I can't conjure it up).

 

Not that this is new. 25 years ago, my father died from lung cancer. The doctor put "cardiovascular collapse" on the death certificate, but it was cancer that caused it.

[VaHawk]

I think that you missed NT's point. Anyone who was around at the outset of the AIDS epidemic knows that enormous strides have been made in both AIDS funding (especially by the US government, but then again that could change now that the Got Our Priviliges group is in control again) and medical research. Back then, most of the major metropolitan newspapers would refuse to mention that someone died of an AIDS related complication, thus the demand by groups such as ACT-UP that resulted in a change to this policy. As such, demand by gays that an obituary of "one of their own" cite the fact that he/she died of an AIDS related complication serves no purpose other than their own selfish needs and is a total violation of the privacy of the deceased and his/her loved ones.

 

As far as the complacency of young gay guys, I believe that this has more to do with a decreasing emphasis on education within the gay community itself. Community groups should be out there in force as they were at the height of the infection, emphasizing that there is no cure for AIDS infection and no vaccine for prevention. I have seen a return of the dark, no holds barred sex back rooms in clubs and condom machines in the club bathrooms when not that long ago they all gave away condoms for free. I feel this is the main reason that AIDS is on the increase again in the gay community, not the parading of the fact that some celebrity died of AIDS related complications.

 

I propose that you are the one "out of touch". I have known many guys of have died of AIDS complications and many who have lived with the virus for many years. The complicated "cocktail" of drugs with the debilitating side effects have not been required for at least the last five years. At least 95% of AIDS infected people in the United States and western Europe get by with a combination pill taken twice a day with minimal, if any side effects (e.g. Trizivir). Of course the stockpile of old cocktail drugs are shipped to third world countries in Latin America and Africa in the name of charitable "humanitarianism" by the rich western powers. Is this a great country, or what? Not only do the rich pharmaceutical companies get to foist this stockpile of sometimes expired drugs off on the third world at a profit, they also get to charge thousands of dollars a month for the new two pills a day wonder drug that costs just a few dollars a month to manufacture! I guess God Granted Our Prayers (GOP).

 

;( ;( ;( ;( ;( ;( ;( ;( ;( ;( ;( ;( ;( ;( ;( ;( ;( ;( ;(

[ad rian]

>Since when does the fact that a gay man raises money for AIDS

>causes automatically equate to having AIDS?

 

I never said that it did. My point was that the description of the cause of death seemed studiously opaque to say the least, and that seemed odd given that the guy in life sought to promote AIDS awareness and funding for research. The only assumption I made was that death description for a 50 year old gay man invites a thought about AIDS. I think most people who read the obituary thought the same. I would be surprised to learn otherwise. Maybe, that's why it is no longer necessary to flash the actual cause in neon. Maybe, but I am not sure.

[VaHawk]

A very concise, compassionate and clearly stated response that I agree with, because as a gay guy we all possess that mythical "gaydar" that enables us to identify each other in a crowd and to read between the lines that others read as written. I believe, in retrospect, that this is exactly the point that most posters were trying to say. Thanks for putting such a positive and concise spin on a sometimes rambling thread. :-) :-)

[Guest 1583]

as a gay man i feel as if we lost another talented, respected public person. his work will continue to inspire forever.

[Guest Love Bubble Butt]

>If they wanted to add more specific info they could have said

>"pneumonia associated with AIDS". But, I see no reason why

>they have to list AIDS in an obituary. I see nothing wrong

>with what was listed and firmly believe every family has a

>right to decide how much information to disclose.

 

Amen. And not only that, but a death announcement is just that: it announces that a loved one has passed away. Nothing obligates the family to reveal anything else. Any additional information that the family chooses to include or not include (such as how their loved one died) is the family's decision.

[Guest Love Bubble Butt]

I guess the appreciation of art or even what constitutes art is highly subjective. I for one happen to really like the first picture. The human body, especially the male form in my opinion, is truly beautiful. And he definitely captured an example of this in the first picture.

 

And I much prefer pictures like this to pictures showing actual sex or cum shots. But that's just my preference.

[Flower]

Well said fuckamarine--you are dead on as to the sentiment as well as the art work. Quite frankly, the first image was not "under-lit" just because it has deep shadows--the detail in the skin tones shows a deliberate purpose to the lighting and the tonality of the image--thus it is Mr Ritts interpretation--like it or not. I like it quite a bit myself. Obviously art is in the eye of the beholder, but is lack of appreciation for a man's art any reason to attack him after life?

 

As for not coming out and saying he died of aids related complications--how arrogant of the original poster!

 

Who does that benefit and why is it any of our business and why would the original poster feel so disturbed that he would even care to "expose" the lie?

 

I have 2 very close friends that are hiv+ and one is open and out about it, as I think he should be and the other, in fact, does feel ashamed and defective for having contracted the disease. Hopefully he will work thru it, but the point is that it is their decision not ours or Addrians.

 

Being hiv+ and how to handle it is a very personal decision both in life and in death--who are we or any one of us to be so self-righteous as to "out" the dead?

[Guest Les]

>Why would you say you know you shouldn't speak ill of the dead and then proceed to do so

 

Hi Fuk,:7

Because I think it's a stupid sentimental maxim and my criticism was very mild in comparison to my true feelings. I don't imagine either family reads this forum and if they do I apologize if their feelings were hurt. I was most critical of Mr. Ritts when he was alive... should I know have to hold my tongue because he's dead?

 

My sympathies are with the family for losing a son, brother, lover...not for the loss to photography.

 

"Art" is truly in the eye of the beholder.