Herb Ritts RIP

[Guest alanm]

Very good response. AIDS is a less threatening disease now, if you have good medical coverage or have an unlimited amount of money. What about AIDS in the minority communities in the US or in third world countries?

 

I also have to take issue with the statement that "I have had 400+ friends die of AIDS-related diseases." By that definition Richard Gere is my friend because I met Gere twice when he attended UMass

with my brother. The Ritts' photo of Gere is plenty sexy, but does not quite capture how extremely good looking he was in his 20s.

[+ BenjaminNicholas]

Greetings Guys~

 

Honestly, if Herb's family/partner wish to publish cause of death as related to pnuemonia, then so be it. Herb Ritts was one of the most talented photographers i've had the pleasure of working with and possibly the easiest when it came to direction. This is truly terrible... He still had so much life to live. He was too young.

 

He'll be missed for not only his insightful work, but his great sense of humor and wit. Herb Ritts was a multi-faceted man who was lost way too soon...

 

 

 

 

Warmest Regards,

 

 

 

 

Benjamin Nicholas

[email protected]

http://www.ChiKindaKid.com

[Guest Fin Fang Foom]

I read with great interest what others had to say about this topic this morning but I've waited until now to add my four cents because I wasn't quite sure where I came down on this "issue".

 

Several people have mentioned the whole thing about privacy and I think that's the real issue here. The death of a loved one and the cause of their death is a private affair. If people want to maintain their privacy, then they will say "so and so died this morning". PERIOD. The moment the cause is commented on then they can't complain that their privacy is being violated if people ask questions when the cause they give is misleading.

 

For sake of this discussion, let's assume that Herb Ritts died from complications associated with AIDS - in this case, pneumonia. By his family and lover not mentioning that Herb died due to AIDS, they inadvertently are stigmatizing the disease. It is true that no one actually dies of AIDS. However, it is also true that women don't die of breast or ovarian cancer. Their cancer began in the breast or ovaries but spread elsewhere resulting in death. When a woman dies of breast cancer, no one says: "she had a heart attack", or whatever might be the ACTUAL cause of death, they say she died after a fight with breast cancer.

 

The same should have been the case with Herb Ritts. I find it kinda shocking in 2002 for someone to hide behind a technicality. If they had said he died from AIDS, that would have been the end of it - no one would have been saying: "Oh, well tell me about his last days. Was there dementia? Had it gone to his brain? Was there KS?" No, people would have left it at that. Instead, his family decided it was 1985 and they needed to "protect" him in death. I find that sad and slightly insulting. If they don't want to say he died from AIDS, then they shouldn't have said anything.

 

It's possible they are respecting the wishes of Herb. I sincerely hope that isn't the case. It would not speak well of him.

 

I want to address two other things mentioned in this thread.

 

1. There is a rise in barebacking among the young not because there being a lack of education. They are behaving this way because 1) most of them are ON DRUGS when they're doing it, and b) they don't see a parade of walking corpses going up and down 8th Avenue. In the 1980's, the streets of Greenwich Village often looked like Night of the Living Dead. That reality did a real good job of killing guys' desire for sex - SAFE or NOT!

 

2. I'm really tired of people saying they've had HUNDREDS of FRIENDS die of AIDS. One person here actually said 400. First of all, I can't even NAME 400 people that I know - let alone FRIENDS. At times, I think some guys think there's a ghoulish contest out there to see who can say they've lost the most "friends". FOUR HUNDRED? Is this guy keeping a list? If so, that's twisted. If he isn't keeping a list, then how the fuck does he come up with THAT NUMBER? Listen buddy, we've all lost alot of people we know, and some of us, lots of friends (depending upon how you define that word, and in the gay community, it's defined loosely). For someone to throw out a number like FOUR HUNDRED is narcissistic at the very least and, more than likely, a fiction. Once again buddy, the ravages of AIDS isn't a contest, so do us all a favor, and keep your statistics to yourself. We're not impressed.

 

Firmly yours,

 

FFF

[BigD]

In the past I have enjoyed the humor of many of

FFF's posts. At some risk of being labeled a fan of

FFF, I must, on this occasion, say that I am moved

by his honesty and impressed by the clarity

he has expressed about this obvious deception.

Not naming AIDS, or stating "complications due to AIDS,"

at the time of death, is a denial of the truth. We

need to be reminded of the ramifications of AIDS.

And a new generation of gay people need to hear and

learn from the truth.

[BgMstr4u]

I don't know if Herb Ritts had AIDS or not, and perhaps most if not all of the other posters don't know either. I suspect he did. But let me bring another possibility into view here.

 

Anyone who has worked with immigrant and homeless communities in LA or NYC, and probably other places as well, knows that for some years now forms of pneumonia not susceptible to treatment have been developing and spreading. This gets little press, has developed practically no community activism, and continues to spread unabated. It is altogether possible that Ritts developed an untreatable form of pneumonia, as do many others, and succumbed to it.

 

I have always liked Herb Ritts' photos. I admire his treatment of light on skin, of objectified male forms as objects of art. I am sorry he is gone.

[Guest fukamarine]

>If people want to maintain their privacy, then they will say "so

>and so died this morning". PERIOD. The moment the cause is

>commented on then they can't complain that their privacy is

>being violated if people ask questions when the cause they

>give is misleading.

 

Wrong! They can say whatever they want to and just because they comment on the cause does not give anyone the RIGHT to question them further. They can ward off unwanted questions with a polite "we do not wish to comment further" You are forgetting that it is really no ones damn business and those that would intrude on a family's grief by persuing further questions are scum.

 

>The same should have been the case with Herb Ritts. I find it

>kinda shocking in 2002 for someone to hide behind a

>technicality.

 

We don't know if it is a technicality as we don't know that he died with AIDS. And whether he did or not, the explanation offered was truthfull - why can't we accept that?

 

>If they had said he died from AIDS, that would

>have been the end of it - no one would have been saying: "Oh,

>well tell me about his last days. Was there dementia? Had it

>gone to his brain? Was there KS?"

 

I you think the gutter press would not have asked those questions, you are living in la la land.

 

>2. I'm really tired of people saying they've had HUNDREDS of

>FRIENDS die of AIDS. One person here actually said 400. First

>of all, I can't even NAME 400 people that I know - let alone

>FRIENDS. At times, I think some guys think there's a ghoulish

>contest out there to see who can say they've lost the most

>"friends". FOUR HUNDRED? Is this guy keeping a list? If so,

>that's twisted. If he isn't keeping a list, then how the fuck

>does he come up with THAT NUMBER?

>FFF

 

I tend to agree with you on your point # 2. Gee whiz - we actually agree on something. But it is quite possible for someone living in a city that has a large gay populationm to actually know of hundreds who have died. In my mind there is a big differance between "know of" and "know".

 

fukamarine

[Donnie]

>I can't even NAME 400 people that I know -

>let alone FRIENDS.

 

I'm so shocked.

[phage]

>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).

 

I’m not going to ask where you get your figures because none of us are here to do term papers, but I find the 95% figure extremely difficult to believe. How can everyone I know fall into that other 5%?

 

I don’t claim to know a hundred people who are positive, but I do know a half-dozen or so and NONE of them are on a simple Trizivir regime. It’s only been out since late 2000 and two of the three combined drugs are AZT and 3TC, which have been out for years. It is not a viable standalone regime for most people unless they are fairly drug naïve and have no resistance to AZT or 3TC -- which is a lot of the people who have been positive for a while.

 

From that small group of friends who I am close enough to discuss medical issues with, one has almost completely run out of options due to extreme liver damage caused by long-term drug therapy. Another has permanent nerve damage due to neuropathy and is resistant to everything currently available. You’ll have to forgive me if I take exception with someone declaring that “adequate” treatment is available. It certainly beats the alternative, but adequate it ain’t.

[VaHawk]

Good point, as I should not just "shoot from the hip" myself when throwing out percentages. I am not going to even try to pretend that I am an AIDS treatment specialist as I am not a doctor. Like you I can only speak from my personal experiences. Some people have a higher tolerance to drugs and most anything will help them but that is certainly not true for all people as is the case with your friends. However, many people are able to thrive and stay healthy on a one pill twice a day or even two pills twice a day regimen. I was referring to those times when people were taking five or more drugs a day to treat AIDS and had to virtually carry a pocket planner to know what time of the day to take each and whether this one had to be taken with food and that one on an empty stomach, etc. Often the side effects were devastating enough that they required additional non-AIDS drugs to combat the side effects such as nausea and loss of appetite. Anyone whose doctor is still bombarding them with that type of treatment should seriously consider seeking a second opinion from a physcian who only works with infectious diseases as they are more up to date and knowledgeable about the latest treatments available. Unfortunately, longer term infected persons who started with the kamikaze cocktails have already been irreparably damaged.

[Guest Fin Fang Foom]

>>If people want to maintain their privacy, then they will say

>"so

>>and so died this morning". PERIOD. The moment the cause is

>>commented on then they can't complain that their privacy

>is

>>being violated if people ask questions when the cause they

>>give is misleading.

>

>Wrong! They can say whatever they want to and just because

>they comment on the cause does not give anyone the RIGHT to

>question them further.

 

Who is talking about fucking RIGHTS?!?!? Does everything have to turn into a constitutional issue? If you're going to play that game then unfortunately you're wrong - people DO have the RIGHT to ask questions - it's called FREEDOM OF SPEECH. However, there's this thing called TASTE (in short supply on this message board) and it's generally in poor TASTE to press an issue. However, it is, unfortunately, an accepted fact that people who are famous have less privacy than you or me. So, when a famous person disassembles regarding the cause of their death, they're gonna be asked questions.

 

Once again, if the family had merely said he died and they weren't going to comment further, it would be in good TASTE not to publicly speculate. However, that's not what the family did - in my opinion, they chose to misrepresent the real cause of his death, and in doing so, further stigmatized something that shouldn't be stigmatized. And THAT, I find distasteful and worthy of exposure.

 

 

>I tend to agree with you on your point # 2. Gee whiz - we

>actually agree on something.

 

Patience grasshopper, you're making progress.

 

 

Tutorially yours,

 

FFF

[Guest Fin Fang Foom]

>So, when a famous person disassembles

 

DISSEMBLES!!! (They're not building an erector set Foom!)

 

I should have stayed in bed.

 

Apologetically yours,

 

FFF

[Guest fukamarine]

>Who is talking about fucking RIGHTS?!?!? Does everything have

>to turn into a constitutional issue?

 

I wasn't speaking of constitutional rights - and you probably know that. I meant they didn't morally have the right - and you probably know that too. But it's more fun to nit-pick and argue, isn't it?

 

>If you're going to play that game then unfortunately you're wrong - >people DO have the RIGHT to ask questions - it's called FREEDOM OF >SPEECH.

 

I'm not playing games - you are.

 

>>I tend to agree with you on your point # 2. Gee whiz - we

>>actually agree on something.

 

>Patience grasshopper, you're making progress.

 

Grasshopper? I've been called worse. At least you didn't call me a cockroach!

 

fukamarine

[marc anthony]

>

>>Patience grasshopper, you're making progress.

>

>Grasshopper? I've been called worse. At least you didn't call

>me a cockroach!

>

>fukamarine

 

LOL! If I remember correctly, I think fukamarine is Canadian... so the endearing nature of "patience grasshopper" was lost on him!

 

From the classic American TV series "Kung Fu", David Carradine was Quai Chang Cain ... aka "Grasshopper", and always in need of his wiser elders' instruction to have patience.

 

I date myself... but at least I was a small child when I copied all those poorly choreographed martial arts moves!

[MiamiLooker]

>in my opinion, they chose to misrepresent the real cause

>of his death

 

Other than speculation, do you have any evidence that he didn't die of pneumonia? Or, that he had AIDS? Can't we just wait until the National Inquirer publishes the "facts"?

[+ Charlie]

"Twisted" or not, I do keep a list of personal acquaintances--people I have worked with, socialized with, slept with, etc.--who have died of AIDS. There are 96 names on it. Since I am relatively on the fringes of gay society these days, I don't find it at all hard to believe that someone else more deeply involved might personally know (not know OF) 400 or more men who have died of AIDS.

[ad rian]

>Other than speculation, do you have any evidence that he

>didn't die of pneumonia? Or, that he had AIDS? Can't we just

>wait until the National Inquirer publishes the "facts"?

 

http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vpsig133085468jan13,0,3529664.story

 

Don't Hide the Truth About AIDS

By Michelangelo Signorile

Michelangelo Signorile is a former editor at The Advocate, a national gay magazine, and author of "Queer in America" and "Life Outside."

 

January 13, 2003

 

Much of the American press seemed to lurch back toward the early '80s two weeks ago, while reporting on the death of the famed celebrity and fashion photographer Herb Ritts.

 

It was downright creepy to see a Reagan-era euphemism for AIDS pop up as the cause of Ritts' death in obituary after obituary: "complications from pneumonia." The New York Times, CNN, the Los Angeles Times, the Associated Press (in a story that ran in Newsday and many other papers) and other media organizations quoted Ritts' publicist, also identified as a friend, who used that term to describe what brought the openly gay photographer's life to an end at the age of 50.

 

Soon enough it was revealed in the gay press (and since has only appeared in a few gossip columns) that Ritts had in fact been HIV-positive for years. His immune system had been sufficiently weakened; HIV infection had left him unable to fight off the pneumonia.

 

In other words, Herb Ritts' death was an AIDS fatality. And the ignorance of the truth surrounding it signals that, once again, this is a disease that dare not speak its name. And that silence has consequences.

 

The New York Times' policy regarding obituaries - formulated in 1986, precisely because of the problems encountered in reporting on public figures who died of complications from AIDS - states that "the obituary of a newsworthy public personality, of any age, should reflect energetic reporting on the cause."

 

The Associated Press doesn't have an official policy, but advises reporters to exhaust every means available - including interviews with the deceased's friends and family, public records and statements by doctors - to determine the cause of a public figure's death.

 

But it doesn't appear that there was any kind of "energetic reporting" in this instance. Most mainstream press reporters seemed to have spoken to only one individual - the publicist - and even then seemed to have followed a sort of "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

 

The Advocate, the national gay and lesbian newsmagazine, however, did ask. And, lo and behold, the very same publicist offered a fuller explanation: "Herb was HIV[-positive], but this particular pneumonia was not PCP [pneumocystis pneumonia, a common opportunistic infection of AIDS]. But at the end of the day, his immune system was compromised." That statement perhaps prompted the Washington Blade, the gay weekly in the nation's capital, to rightly run with the headline, "Gay photographer Herb Ritts succumbs to AIDS."

 

It's nice to know that small pockets of the gay community might now have the full story. But the fact remains: Millions of Americans, gay and straight, still haven't a clue about what took the life of the celebrity photographer who was himself a big supporter of AIDS causes.

 

This isn't just another example of incomplete or deceptive reporting. It's also a tragic omission at a time when study after study shows unsafe sex and new infections continuing to rise steeply among younger generations of gay men, often because the realities of AIDS are abstract to them - enough to allow them to take foolish risks.

 

They are often too young to remember the AIDS deaths of celebrities, like Rock Hudson in 1985, which jolted America and the world. Most young gay men also have not watched their own friends die, as was the case for gay men of previous generations. This is true even as many of these young men become infected with HIV themselves and stay quiet about their illness, going on the drug "cocktail," chained for the rest of their lives to powerful pharmaceuticals that often have horrific side effects.

 

Those drugs have thankfully saved many lives. Ironically, they've also driven AIDS back into the closet. The decline of AIDS awareness in the newsroom mirrors what has happened in society in general. No longer are many people with HIV walking around rail-thin and gaunt. Many even use testosterone as part of their therapy, building up their bodies and developing bulging biceps, often appearing more fit than their uninfected friends. AIDS becomes increasingly invisible, on the streets as well as in the media, even as HIV infection is an ever-present danger. And clearly, though American fatalities have decreased a great deal, HIV still kills.

 

That's why the story behind the death of Herb Ritts, a man who photographed Hollywood icons and shot music videos for youth idols such as Jennifier Lopez and 'NSync, would go a long way.

 

That is, if anybody actually heard about it.

Copyright © 2003, Newsday, Inc.