Martin Parr, love him or hate him?

Martin Parr love or hate?

  • love

    Votes: 48 63.2%

  • hate

    Votes: 28 36.8%
  • Total voters
    76
Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm saying that Martin Parr makes a very good living from his photography.

You claim to be making images comparable to his while relaxing on holiday so I presume when you put your mind to it your work must be of a quality which eclipses his.

I am therefor wondering why you are not rolling in money and being heralded as the photographic genius of the 21st century?
 
specialman said:
We're constantly talking about how the crit section of TP can't just be dealt with through 'it's nice' or 'it's crap' comments.

POAH - ..............You've dispelled all questions about the meaning of your image, leaving no room for interpretation.
Click to expand...



lol


That's the best photo he's ever posted..

Reminds me of one of those turtles escaping to the sea

the fact that the horizon is wonky is of course, absolutely irrelevant

:)




.
 
Last edited:
I have nothing against Mr Parr, his photographs or the people that buy his work. Thats not what this thread is ment to be about.

Do you like his work or not - I don't like his work.

Why certain people have got up in arms about people thinking his work is crap is beyond me.

I have no wish to earn money from photography, I do not actively try to sell my self or my photos to anyone. However, if someone wanted to buy a print I'd not say no.

I'm entitled to think his photographs are uninteresting, bland, snap shot like etc without people jumping down my throat asking why I'm not rich. I've not seen all his photos so there is a chance I may actually like one. I'm not a fan of HCB or that bloke from Yosemite work either.

I'm sorry but I just don't understand why you think this is anthing more than poorly framed snap shot of a mother and a baby.

http://blogs.deia.com/momentodecisivo/files/2011/07/ST.-MORITZ-Switzerland—2003.jpg




brianwar said:
I'm saying that Martin Parr makes a very good living from his photography.

You claim to be making images comparable to his while relaxing on holiday so I presume when you put your mind to it your work must be of a quality which eclipses his.

I am therefor wondering why you are not rolling in money and being heralded as the photographic genius of the 21st century?
Click to expand...
 
You linked to this

http://blogs.deia.com/momentodecisivo/files/2011/07/ST.-MORITZ-Switzerland—2003.jpg

Maybe you need your eyesight checking and then you'll love Parr, I can recommend a very good optician in Shawlands??? ;P

I'm undecided on Parr, I enjoy his older images as social documentary pieces.

I really like his very early, surrealist work with his parents, preferring this over his more well known style of work.

I enjoy the debate his work always brings and respect him for standing up for himself and getting into Magnum etc and gaining the success he has.

I've been to talks by him and find him an amusing and informative person.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
yes I linked to that since we are not allowed to post other peopes work :nono:

again - how is it anything other than a picture of a parent and a baby asleep. I have pictures of mum and baby sleeping together how is this different from them :shrug::shrug::shrug::shrug:

I don't live in shawlands ;)

brianwar said:
You linked to this

http://blogs.deia.com/momentodecisivo/files/2011/07/ST.-MORITZ-Switzerland—2003.jpg

Maybe you need your eyesight checking and then you'll love Parr, I can recommend a very good optician in Shawlands??? ;P
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"Here's a fine selection of Parr - http://blogs.deia.com/momentodecisivo/tag/luxury/" I couldn't agree more, some of them are simply stunning and really tell a story - they say a picture is worth 1,000 words, and it's so true in the case of many of these.... Who hasn't seen some sights at wedding or other function that have you wondering why you've left your gun at home? - the photos of the spoilt, overdressed, overplastic surgeried harridans are just superb - the woman wearing a too tight dress on which there's spilt drink with someone looking the worse for wear in the background - sums up such things as Ascot perfectly! And as for the "millionaires" bash........(the animal looked far better in it than you ever will dear!)

What a refreshing change from the awful over-processed "shot to a formula" vacuous drivel we so often see nowadays
 
Pookeyhead said:
He's not producing commercial work, so there's no parity between what he does and a commercial photographer does. His work is art based and a million miles from commercial photography. In fact, the only connection is that he uses a camera. His work is about satire and parody. It's not about technique. Yes.. he uses a snapshot aesthetic, but it's a considered approach. It's not that he couldn't take a "proper" photograph if he wanted to.

:) I know what you're up to.

I know.. quite depressing. Why does everything have to be pretty, and loaded with technical excellence. Art is about expression and art should say something. His parody of the English in "Last Resort" is just spot on. How else should have shot it? Slow shutter, 10 stop grad, light painted hdr wire wool spinning [PLEASE DON'T TRY TO BYPASS THE SWEAR FILTER]? He uses a snapshot aesthetic as that's the very vehicle the people he is parodying would themselves use to record their memories of a holiday at the seaside. It's just the same with his work "Home and Abroad".. in fact, it's just a suitable way of presenting things in a no nonsense way that is immediate and eye grabbing. It's essence of photography, no garnish... and it's perfect for what he does.

It's not about wrong or right though is it. I have no problem with people who just don't like it. Why would I? It's when people dismiss it as crap because they don't like it. I dislike lots of artwork... I still admire it and see its value. To dismiss everything you don't like as crap is just extremely closed minded.
Click to expand...

Spot on.
 
specialman said:
The only thing that does keep rearing its head is the inability by many to look past an image's obvious technical factors - lighting, composition, sharpness etc - and look at the actual contents of the image and what reaction the photographer was intending to provoke.
Click to expand...

POAH said:
I do have ones that are equally as crap as parr ones in that link. Even worse focus, poor use of on camera flash, bad crops etc
Click to expand...

Another thread reminded me of this...

http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.co.uk/2006/06/great-photographers-on-internet.html

Probably posted by another polo-neck clad pompous arse. :D
 
Some of Parr's shots look no better than my mother's old snap shots from when we were kids. Maybe my mother was a photographic genius??
 
Definitely! Especially the ones of me on the beach in my Dastardly & Mutely Tee and shorts!!
 
specialman said:
Interesting how we see very different meanings to the same image.
Click to expand...

Yours is an interesting interpretation. Pookey get's the meaning to most of Parrs work, usually highlighting something about class. His post 228 http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=5351723&postcount=228
is a great analysis of parrs work and a good example of the whole being greater than the sum of the parts.

Art as such is subjective and this is the medium we've chosen to dabble in. As such I can understand some people liking things that others don't.But to dismiss something as crap because it doesn't fit a chosen series of technical rules is narrow minded, in my personal opinion. Who made the rules, who says they weren't to be broken.

What was the taker trying to portray, was there a meaning behind the image? Not everything has to have the sole purpose of being a documentary moment in time.
 
POAH said:
I had a look at those pics again but on a computer screen this time - OMFG how crap are they. are you seriously trying to tell me these images are ment to be good. oh dear, god help your students lol
Click to expand...

Who's are meant to be good... yours are Parrs? I've no idea if yours are meant to be good or not, and to be honest, it doesn't really matter much. It's often the case that shots that were not intended to be good, can be. That doesn't mean the resulting image is less as a result. If you mean Parr's then yes, everything about them is intentional.

Despite how crap that image may be technically, there's something quite disturbing about a black and white shot, taken so haphazardly with a small child crawling so far in a straight line. The sad thing is... you'll fail to see anything of value in any image like that anyway.. but the biggest difference is, your intent.. you had no intention of taking anything other than a snapshot, so it's going to be far less likely it will contain anything to raise it above that level. If everyone thought like you though, all of Jacques Henri Lartigue's negatives would have been thrown in the bin. Sometimes there's an allure to the snapshot that more manicured imagery just doesn't have.

I don't see why you needed to make your last comment though. Do you think I teach students to take snapshots? Parr's work is not snapshots. If you mean do I berate my students for intentionally taking something that looks like a snapshot if that was their intention from the outset, and have rationalised their choice well? No.. no I wouldn't.

If you think that makes me a bad lecturer, then it's probably best that it's me teaching them and not you, as otherwise they'd all be taking the same formulaic images that prescribe to the same rules.

Do they all take shots like Parr's? Of course not.. in fact hardly any do, ever. Perhaps that's why I like Parr... he's original.

I'm getting heartily sick of you making snide remarks about what I do for a living as well. What exactly is your problem, getting personal all the time? Jealous? Well.. Go get PGCE and teach it yourself... oh, hang on, you can't... you've not got any relevant industry experience... or relevant qualifications... forgot :)

Cagey75 said:
So he gives reasons as to why he thinks they're crap, fair play - only to be questioned and scolded further ... Jeez David,
Click to expand...

Don't be silly, and I've not scolded anyone. Out of all the people debating against me in this thread, at least Dave brought something to the table. I Was just hoping it would be more than a technical crit.
 
Last edited:
Anyone interested, Parr features alongside Rankin and others in this month's Digital Camera magazine.

Well, I say featured, they show a few of his images and give 5 "top tips" from him.
 
Cagey75 said:
Anyone interested, Parr features alongside Rankin and others in this month's Digital Camera magazine.

Well, I say featured, they show a few of his images and give 5 "top tips" from him.
Click to expand...

I take it you won't be trying out his top tips then :)
 
Well, since his top tip is "Avoid smiles" - he goes on to say if they're smiling, it's a snapshot - that's the big difference , to him.

So, when I take moody shots of the kids, I can call them art ... wooohoooo
 
Pookeyhead - you seem to have more of a stomach for curmudgeonry than me, I'm spent.... ;)
 
I love that word :)
 
I thought obstreperous was better, which I used in here earlier :D
 
POAH said:
791323160_6f7e3bd205_o.jpg


I had a look at those pics again but on a computer screen this time - OMFG how crap are they. are you seriously trying to tell me these images are ment to be good. oh dear, god help your students lol
Click to expand...

Is it only me but I actually quite like this shot as it actually describes what you were trying to shoot. That is art.
 
Just had a good nosey at MP recent work and the Christ's Hospital set does what it is supposed to do. It gives a candid insight into the daily business at the school, good documentary shots. I particularly like the boys reading under the window.

http://www.martinparr.com/recent-work/recent-work-4/

As a documentary photographer, he is good.
 
DG Phototraining said:
2 - very unflattering capture
Click to expand...

There has been a lot of references to people "not getting it" but to me this sums it up 100%. You don't have to like it, you don't have to "get it" but at least we can now see you really don't get it which is why it is crap to you.
 
Last edited:
Like a lot of others I have never heard of Mr Parr - looked him up on Google and had to re-check several times I had the right site, have spent / wasted a good 3/4 of an hour looking through his stuff and have come to the conclusion. . . . I think it's really sweet that him being obviously almost blind giving his camera to his one armed 4 year old granddaughter to take every photo for him.

"hate" is too strong a word, we all like different things thankfully - maybe "deluded" would sum it up better!

Any 'artist' can take a snap shot or make a cr@p sculpture etc and then employ someone to 'artistically big it up' or explain what you should be seeing - look at that moron Hurst for example or that one that displayed an un made bed. . . . . really? people are THAT gullible?

.DAVID. off to stake my claim and make my fortune after looking at his site
 
Last edited:
I really am utterly amazed at this sort of response - enjoyment of photography is of course subjective, but I'm amazed that people don't "get" his photos at all, and try to denigrate them.
His flair for composition, framing and ability to hit the "decisive moment" is utterly superb, and as I said, so many of his photos tell a story and make a statement - rather like an "observational" comedian - absolutely brilliant!
 
Just been through his website. Am I supposed to be impressed?
 
POAH said:
pretty much what I expected you to repy with

Pookeyhead said:
blah blah blah blah blah, random rant, pointless moan, blah blah blah
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Completely unnecessary, this has been a good debate and posts like this just set out to spoil it. Take some time off to have a think.
 
Its funny all the people with links to their sites trying to flog prints, accusing parr of somehow being the great self publicist. He is a member of one of the most important agencies in the world, run not by turtle neck art critics but other important photographer which is invite only.
 
Last edited:
I was enjoying one of Parr's books in bed last night. I literally laughed out loud on more than one occasion.

That's enough for me.

The fact that some people just don't "get it" makes it all the more appealing to me. "My grandma could do that" and so on. How many said the same of Jackson Pollock back in the day? It's about what the artists sees and brings to light; what makes us reflect, laugh, understand, empathise or sympathise with.

If I wanted to take perfect pictures I'd join a photo club, subscribe to numerous magazines, talk c**p about how my camera is better than so-and-so's with a bunch of other airheads, and most likely feel like my soul's little bit sapped and wonder why nobody understands my 'creativity' apart from my airhead midlife crisis suffering mates.
 
I'm still not getting the "you don't get it" brigade. I think everyone gets it, its a bit arrogant and patronising to suggest they don't. What some 'don't get' is how he gets away with half the stuff he pawns off as art!

While I would never say I hate it, I don't see it as anything remarkable, in the slightest. I often wonder how some of these artists get so famous, I really do.

Before this thread I'd not seen Parr's name mentioned on this forum once, yet he seems to have so many loyal fans.
 
rjbell said:
Its funny all the people with links to their sites trying to flog prints, accusing parr of somehow being the great self publisiser. He is a member of one of the most important agencies in the world, run not by turtle neck art critics but other important photographer which is invite only.
Click to expand...

You were the one who posed the question, love or hate? Now you're going to turn around and question people's honest responses?
 
Cagey75 said:
You were the one who posed the question, love or hate? Now you're going to turn around and question people's honest responses?
Click to expand...
No not at all. Just correcting peoples assumptions that he has got where he is by being some marketing guru selling sand to the Arabs. I don't give a monkeys who like him or not.
 
I've seen the light. I can't take Parr seriously any longer.













He shoots Canon.
 
David Stallard said:
...Any 'artist' can take a snap shot or make a cr@p sculpture etc and then employ someone to 'artistically big it up' or explain what you should be seeing - look at that moron Hurst for example or that one that displayed an un made bed. . . . . really? people are THAT gullible?...
Click to expand...

It's not 'bigging it up'... work that is based around a concept is often the hardest work to access because you ahve to effectively buy into the philosophies and ideas of that artist....

I don't 'get' Tracy Emin's bed and I was dismissive of it initially because A) I love to hate fine art, and B) it seemed to be overshadowed by the furore surrounding it, taking on an Emperor's New Clothes status because it was so far removed from the beauty of art. It's a very personal piece from when she'd been suffering suicidal tendencies and I suppose this has a bearing on its effectiveness as a communicative device. But on face value, it's a bed like any other bed and I think that's why so many people had issues with it. It was almost too real, although it was in a gallery environment which immediately changed its relevance.

You mention Hurst - I reckon he's one of the modern greats because he combines his art with showmanship... he has this surly, devil-may-care attitude and that enfant terrible attitude struck a chord with people I feel. I wasn't enamoured by the medicine cabinet stuff but the preserved animals were just crazy in ambition and scale and shock value. If anything, those pieces are totally accessible because they're presenting animals (cows and sharks) that we're familiar with in one way or another, and bringing them up close to the public but presented in a gruesome way that promotes vouyuerism.

Going back to 'bigging it up', if you read up on Parr or even watch his videos, it's pretty clear what his intentions are as a photographer when sets about a new project. He's not recording news, he's documenting life as he sees it, aiming to show the absurd, the tender moments, the bizarre, those things that are often pushed aside by photographers who are dead-set on presenting in-your-face fact. He doesn't take a snap and then manufacture a plausible excuse for the photograph's existence afterwards. The belief that he does (and that all artists are taking the mickey) is borne out of ignorance of the artists and their thinking, and a reluctance to believe that art goes beyond the simply portraying the obvious.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top