Just for clarity, I don't think I've seen a wedding photographer 'proud' of shooting thousands of images.
Some do it most don't - most wedding photographers 'keeper rate' is between 1:3 -1:5
I don't think any of Martin's are, but I'm sure he'd say the same about mine.It is impressive. I reckon only one in a hundred of most people's pictures are any good. Often far less than that.
I don't think any of Martin's are, but I'm sure he'd say the same about mine.
I never said I didn't appreciate it - I said I didn't really like it. I'm happy he does what he does, I don't think he's s*** or that it's not art, or any of those other mindless knee jerky things. I just don't really like it.Really?
Back when he shot on the Wirrel it was said:
"...there is a profound sense of sadness in this series. The pictures, telling tales of ordinary lives, depict groups of people spending their leisure time in shabby resorts just to escape the daily grind – usually for the benefit of the children.This run-down town, temporarily full of people from other run-down towns and cities was symptomatic for Parr of a supposedly affluent society falling apart at the seams.
Then look at his work on the Amalfi Coast and this. Apart from the typical Parr processing and colours which always stand out, I find his images judgemental, perhaps part of his methodist upbringing. Even in the exhibition he carries on, did he need to shoot this chap on the side of his shirt stain?
Go past the simple images and there's a depth, which becomes obvious as you look at his work. His colour documentary photography is hugely influencing photographers today.
Philip Jones Griffiths, who'd been in Vietnam when the war was on and whose pictures are often humanistically moving, didn't want him in Magnum - I can only surmise that he saw Parr's work as trivial in some way, if not satirical? I think that it can be said that Parr's work is more cerebral than compassionate, at least that's how it looks to me.
