BBC One - Martin Parr Idents

cuthbert

cuthbert

Pugh Pugh Barney McGrew Me Dibble and Grubb
Messages
1,444
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
i couldn't find a thread about this so sorry if this is a duplicate.

You might have read about the recent news that Martin Parr has been commissioned to produce some idents (the little films between the programmes) for BBC One to explore "oneness" in Britain.

If you haven't seen them, here's the two we've got at the moment:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puLcgCU7_Js


What do you think of them?

Personally, I never really got Martin Parr's style, his stuff always looked like snaps to me and these are pretty much the same to the point where it almost looks like he just went out for an afternoon with his camcorder.
 
Well, I had reaListed that he did film. Check out the advert for his talk in Qorcester. If you are near, why not come along....
 
I've never been keen on the work of Martin Parr to be honest. I don't think I see what he is seeing! I hope he didn't get paid too much for those idents! Anyone with a basic mobile could have produced those?!
 
cuthbert said:
What do you think of them?

Personally, I never really got Martin Parr's style, his stuff always looked like snaps to me and these are pretty much the same to the point where it almost looks like he just went out for an afternoon with his camcorder.
Click to expand...

He's got a good eye for an odd bod, but I'd agree that this looks like a refined version of someone with a camcorder and trying to find a subject to film. After seeing @Chipper mention his visit to Worcester I went to check out his website - consider me to be among those who won't be making the trip to Worcester.
 
Not having a TV iI find it hard to judge the idents out of context, but as for Parr's photography it's snapshot-like because that's the look he wants. That said he has made some fantastic photos over the years. Look at his early black and white stuff (e.g. The Non-Conformists) and it's very much in the 'traditional' Cartier-Bresson influenced style. He can take photos photohobbyists will admire, he just chooses not to. Which is fair enough in my book, the HCB look has been done to death. He does have interesting things to say about photography even if you don't like his pictures. I'd go see him talk if he came up this way.
 
SarahMarie said:
I've never been keen on the work of Martin Parr to be honest. I don't think I see what he is seeing! I hope he didn't get paid too much for those idents! Anyone with a basic mobile could have produced those?!
Click to expand...

Yes but "Anyone" didn't produce them, someone who has spent decades building a style and a reputation did; you might not like that style but surely he deserves recompense commensurate with someone of his standing? If we got into "the BBC should only pay for things that I like" then we might as well shut the whole thing down and just watch Youtube.
 
sirch said:
Yes but "Anyone" didn't produce them, someone who has spent decades building a style and a reputation did; you might not like that style but surely he deserves recompense commensurate with someone of his standing? If we got into "the BBC should only pay for things that I like" then we might as well shut the whole thing down and just watch Youtube.
Click to expand...
What I meant was I don't like his style but he does have a style...a unique style. The idents in my opinion are not representative of his style. If someone shows you a Martin Parr photograph then you can pretty much tell it's his. In the way you could tell a Lowry for instance. The clips shown on the BBC could have been done by anyone...they don't represent what he is famous for at all.
 
SarahMarie said:
What I meant was I don't like his style but he does have a style...a unique style. The idents in my opinion are not representative of his style. If someone shows you a Martin Parr photograph then you can pretty much tell it's his. In the way you could tell a Lowry for instance. The clips shown on the BBC could have been done by anyone...they don't represent what he is famous for at all.
Click to expand...

May be because it is a different medium his video style is different to his photographic style? I still think he ought to be paid commensurate with his reputation.
 
SarahMarie said:
What I meant was I don't like his style but he does have a style...a unique style. The idents in my opinion are not representative of his style. If someone shows you a Martin Parr photograph then you can pretty much tell it's his. In the way you could tell a Lowry for instance. The clips shown on the BBC could have been done by anyone...they don't represent what he is famous for at all.
Click to expand...

Surely they don't necessarily have to be in his style? The BBC commissioned the work so it's appears reasonable to me to suppose that they may have given him some artistic direction as to the style that fits what they want.

PS: Bold added by me to show which part of the quoted text I am referring to.
 
Dreadful.

The current/last ones were much better and I like the batty animated BBC 2 ones too but these new ones are IMO just awful and how long will it be before the absence of non whites in one and non whites being shamelessly pushed to the back in the other causes controversy...
 
Last edited:
Bristolian said:
Surely they don't necessarily have to be in his style? The BBC commissioned the work so it's appears reasonable to me to suppose that they may have given him some artistic direction as to the style that fits what they want.

PS: Bold added by me to show which part of the quoted text I am referring to.
Click to expand...
But surely they choose him because they wanted his style? You don't commission someone who is famous for a particular style and then say "don't do in it your usual style, do it totally run of the mill" because that what it is. It's a recording of a dance class and a few people on the beach. Anyone on YouTube or Facebook could have produced something similar. Anyway, opinions are opinions and each to their own but personally I think they are rubbish.
 
cuthbert said:
Personally, I never really got Martin Parr's style, his stuff always looked like snaps to me and these are pretty much the same to the point where it almost looks like he just went out for an afternoon with his camcorder.
Click to expand...

^^^WHS^^^ I don't get his work either, don't see what the fuss is all about.
 
SarahMarie said:
Anyway, opinions are opinions and each to their own but personally I think they are rubbish.
Click to expand...

Rubbish masquerading as high art.

The BBC seems to think it's the arbiter of all things right and proper and on message.

Sanctimonious bunch of luvvies!

IMO :D
 
Shot on a DSLR?

https://BANNED/paulreas/status/816385702548111360
 
Not a fan of the idents

I saw an exhibition of his work, I understand he's difficult to love, but I think his early stuff and his latest stuff is 'interesting' he has had periods of rubbish though.
 
Parrs work is very much a product of how you choose to look at his work, not just his own vision.

I see his stuff as his gentle amusement at human quirks and behaviours and a capturing often of culture we are loosing as time passes. He also does some very nice environmental portraits. Some people see him as sneering but as I said, depends on your own perspective. He does not come over as sneering when talking about the subjects of his work.

I have seen him give a talk. He is very confident, but comes across as modest and nice. He is very amusing to listen to. He is quirky himself, collecting odd postcards and memorabilia.

I would recommend his talks to anyone, even if you do not like his images particularly.
 
I didn't think that much of his later work until I heard him talk about it.
 
I can't help shake the feeling that anyone else without the name would not have this work taken seriously. If as suggested, his work is a product of how you choose to view it then that rather confirms the need to recognise the photographer first before appreciating it.
 
ancient_mariner said:
I can't help shake the feeling that anyone else without the name would not have this work taken seriously.
Click to expand...

I think it was quite a while before he got any recognition, so he did not start off with a "name".. He also does quite a bit of advertising work I believe, so he probably has a wider range of styles then is generally realised.


ancient_mariner said:
If as suggested, his work is a product of how you choose to view it then that rather confirms the need to recognise the photographer first before appreciating it.
Click to expand...

Parrs art is not a product of how anyone views it, its just a piece of artwork, a persons actual response/reaction to anything is a product of their own personality traits. I dislike Daviid Balieys photos of women in bondage type scenarios but loads of people probably rushed out to buy the book in its day as the images had a different meaning to them. Neither point of view changed the images themselves.
 
srichards said:
I didn't think that much of his later work until I heard him talk about it.
Click to expand...
I think this goes for any photographer. As it's subjective, is interpreted by different people in different ways according to their experiences/views, then when you hear a photographer speak about their work it gives you their perspective, which often brings forth a whole new meaning.
Well worth going to photographers talks, not just the few famous one has heard of
 
MidnightUK said:
Parrs work is very much a product of how you choose to look at his work, not just his own vision.
Click to expand...

MidnightUK said:
Parrs art is not a product of how anyone views it, its just a piece of artwork, a persons actual response/reaction to anything is a product of their own personality traits.
Click to expand...

This appears to be a contradiction to me.

It's almost inescapable that the perception of someone's work will be influenced by knowing who produced it, and particularly as Byker notes, if you've heard them explain what they have done and why. SarahMarie made the comment that he has a very unique style and that one could "pretty much tell it's his" but looking at the work presented on his website currently that's certainly not at all true. I'd suggest that being told he had produced a particular image would cause a fan to appreciate that image much more than if they saw the same picture posted anonymously on TP.

I'm not at all anti Parr's work - I know almost nothing of what must be an extremely substantial body of images - but judging by the above plus what's currently on his website, he doesn't stand out from a lot of very ordinary photographers.
 
ancient_mariner said:
This appears to be a contradiction to me.
Click to expand...
I think I worded it badly, but its too late at night and I am too poor with words to say it any better right now. Apologies.

ancient_mariner said:
It's almost inescapable that the perception of someone's work will be influenced by knowing who produced it
Click to expand...
Years ago on TV I saw a painting being talked about by experts. It was very detailed and excellently done. The experts said how very good it was, then said if it was by X person it would be worth a couple of thousand, but if the same image could be proved to be by a famous painter it would be worth millions.
To me, an image is either good or not, who it is by may be of historical interest but the content should have the real value. I realise though that the collectors market does not think like that and influences all of us much more that is fair to less well known artists.

ancient_mariner said:
judging by the above plus what's currently on his website, he doesn't stand out from a lot of very ordinary photographers.
Click to expand...
I agree with you, I don't think he is unique and I have seen his technical awareness pointed out as very poor. I think though his choice of content can be... a lesser trodden path so has rarity value, and he can be excellent with timing. Its hard to say what his advertising work is like - presumably pretty good and perhaps of a different look and style - its likely we will not know as I think he keeps his advertising commissions very low key, so its near impossible for most of us to know which campaigns are his work.
 
MidnightUK said:
Years ago on TV I saw a painting being talked about by experts. It was very detailed and excellently done. The experts said how very good it was, then said if it was by X person it would be worth a couple of thousand, but if the same image could be proved to be by a famous painter it would be worth millions.
To me, an image is either good or not, who it is by may be of historical interest but the content should have the real value. I realise though that the collectors market does not think like that and influences all of us much more that is fair to less well known artists.
Click to expand...

As a fan of Man Ray, if someone told me that a slightly odd picture had been created by him then I'd probably spend more time on it than if it were something bunged up in the 'Creative' category of TP. I am reminded of Pierre Brassau, which should make us all a little humble and careful about what we appreciate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Brassau
 
Last edited:
MidnightUK said:
I
Years ago on TV I saw a painting being talked about by experts. It was very detailed and excellently done. The experts said how very good it was, then said if it was by X person it would be worth a couple of thousand, but if the same image could be proved to be by a famous painter it would be worth millions.
To me, an image is either good or not, who it is by may be of historical interest but the content should have the real value. I realise though that the collectors market does not think like that and influences all of us much more that is fair to less well known artists.
Click to expand...
It's simpler than that, it's an art vs artefact question.

What is the value of a medal:
  • I've just bought from a trophy shop.
  • Awarded for service in the 1st world war.
  • Awarded for an act of bravery in the 1st world war.
  • Awarded for an act of bravery in the 1st world war and accompanied by a citation.
  • Awarded to a famous person for an act of bravery in the 1st world war and accompanied by a citation.

Likewise a great photograph (should I ever take one) by me has a lesser value than one by David Bailey.
 
Ed Sutton said:
Here we go down the dreaded art wormhole again. :eek:
Click to expand...

No - we've stayed away from that so far (even though the A word has been used several times already). But like Phil says, knowing (or thinking we know) who took a photograph makes a world of difference for most people.
 
ancient_mariner said:
But like Phil says, knowing (or thinking we know) who took a photograph makes a world of difference for most people.
Click to expand...
A good photo is a good photo regardless of who took it. It's the poor ones taken by renowned photographers where the big problem lies.
 
ancient_mariner said:
Ah, then we ARE back to the art question.
Click to expand...
Except a good photo doesn't have to be art, it can be a good documentary photo (for example) and be judged by other criteria than those used to judged 'art' photos.
 
Did the BBC pay for those? If so, and they have a few seconds to kill between programmes, why not bring back the twirling globe and the BBC logo instead (retro is supposed to be 'in' at the moment), and spend the money they saved on programmes?! No, on second thoughts, they'd probably only put it towards another cookery programme or 'talent' show! :banghead:
 
Last edited:
ancient_mariner said:
Ah, then we ARE back to the art question.
Click to expand...
Ed Sutton said:
Except a good photo doesn't have to be art, it can be a good documentary photo (for example) and be judged by other criteria than those used to judged 'art' photos.
Click to expand...

No - I meant that what constitutes a good photo, once we get past basic technique, is then down to perception & what it says to you i.e. art territory. To some in this Thread Parr creates great art, while to others he takes snaps at opportune moments - it's down to perception, which is frequently influenced by what we think we know about what we observe.
 
ancient_mariner said:
No - I meant that what constitutes a good photo, once we get past basic technique, is then down to perception & what it says to you i.e. art territory. To some in this Thread Parr creates great art, while to others he takes snaps at opportune moments - it's down to perception, which is frequently influenced by what we think we know about what we observe.
Click to expand...

I'm no clearer as to the point you're making. Sorry.

A good photo is good when it achieves what its maker set out to achieve. That might be to effect an emotion in a viewer, or put a message across, or even to look pretty. Depends on the intention of the photographer.

IIRC Parr considers himself to be a documentary photographer. To a large extent taking 'snaps at opportune moments' is at the heart of documentary photography - and many (most?) other genres of photography. That doesn't preclude the results from being good photographs - or good art.
 
I agree his style is not to everyone's taste. I am still looking forward to seeing his talk in Worcester on 1st July..... Check out the details on the other thread about him if you are interested.
 
I really like is early stuff. I have the last resort book and love it. Struggle with his recent work.
 
By co-incidence my housemate and I opened our Christmas gifts the day before yesterday (don't even go there re why) and it turns out one of them is the new Parr book on the Rhubarb Triangle which was not expected.

Looks like he self publishes which is good, it must give him a much better level of control and indeed of pricing and profit. I have to say I enjoyed looking at it. It was the common edition and this seems much more affordable than some of his earlier collections (not the 'limited' cased edition of the rhubarb - have you seen the price of that!!!).

My house mate recognised someone in the photos - one of the people on page 70 used to be a work colleague, so thats rather nice.

Its interesting to see how Parr has run with the pink/red colour theme throughout the book and image choices. I think its a well put together publication.

He seems very supportive of people creating photobooks, appearing in the Photo Book Bristol events and collecting others work himself. He also seems to have done quite a bit of formal teaching.

British Journal of Photography - The photobook according to Parr
http://www.bjp-online.com/2014/06/the-photobook-according-to-parr

Bristol Photobook festival
http://photobookbristol.com
http://photobookbristol.com
Quick bio of Martin Parr
http://photobookbristol.com/speaker/martin-parr
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top