Among the glimpses into pre-breakup dynamics offered by Peter Jackson’s “Get Back” series lies a fascinating, albeit somewhat shrouded story — the simmering legal tension between George Harrison and photographer, Ethan A. Russell. It emerges subtly : during sessions for “Let It Be,” there’s mention of pictures Russel taken that weren’t “right” by Harrison. But what was this dispute about?
To understand why a seemingly simple photo shoot generated fireworks requires a deeper dive into two individuals who each embodied powerful, independent impulses within ’70s-era pop culture.
Eth an A. Russell emerged with the same artistic audacity that came to define the Beatles themselves in the late ’60s. His groundbreaking work captured not just iconic moments but inner worlds, his raw aesthetic clashing with convention and finding favor amongst burgeoning alternative musical scenes and youth culture at large. While commercially successful portraiture formed part of his practice (the Rolling Stones are counted among his notable subjects), Russsell often sought a visual narrative that went beyond glossy magazine spreads. Photography, for him: was art first, commerce second, a pursuit intrinsically linked to the spiritual quest he grappled with through Buddhist practices.
George Harrison, by that point immersed in transcendental meditation and increasingly assertive within the band, understood – more than his partners arguably did – that artistic expression is as much a personal mission as it is a public product. He sought connection through spirituality and demanded creative autonomy, two ambitions sometimes at odds with established structures within pop music.
There’s historical context adding nuance to Russell & Harrison’s tension. Harrison’s journey towards Eastern philosophical thought paralleled the burgeoning countercultural fascination with alternative spiritualities, challenging ingrained ideas about the ‘art of photography’. Photography for him wasn’t just capturing reality – it was channeling a mystical essence beyond what the conventional photo album conveyed.
It seems likely Russells approach (perhaps a blend of documentary realism and more poetic image capture) ruffled those same feathers that Harrison’s music had chafed against within ‘the system.’ What constituted “right” became debatable when artistic agendas misaligned, with Harrison’s own spiritual inclinations influencing his perceptions of Russell’s visual language.
While “Get Back” leaves the details vague, we can decipher: it wasn’t only a case of “bad pictures” for Harrison who valued artistic autonomy. More subtly at play was a power struggle around artistic vision and control happening beneath a collective cultural fascination. “Get Back” offered tantalising hints of internal debates and individual passions that color not simply Beatles-specific relationships but the broader story of artistic evolution – with both individuals standing as figures caught between rebellion and compromise in tumultuous times.
The legal outcome is unknown, which perhaps lends further ambiguity to the relationship. The fact Harrison felt such power necessary to publicly express his frustration speaks volumes. What remains are questions: How exactly did Harrison’s spirituality inform his critique of Russell’s work? Were personal issues entangled in the photograph debate? How did this clashing artistic sensibility affect George and the remaining band dynamic behind ‘Let It Be?’
Perhaps these unanswered aspects, cloaked in artistic tension and backstage conversations, are themselves a compelling part of ‘Get Back’ success – prompting continued discussion beyond mere chronological recap.
