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.
Matt... Chill out...it's a cracking debate, just takes moment or 2 to digest replies before getting uppity, pokey head has made some very valid comments in this thread and arguing his point well, he's not looking for a ruck.
 
I think I'll let dod respond. You're just after a fight.
 
matty said:
Matt... Chill out...it's a cracking debate, just takes moment or 2 to digest replies before getting uppity, pokey head has made some very valid comments in this thread and arguing his point well, he's not looking for a ruck.
Click to expand...

Yeah man ;)
 
I don't think an image needs to be aesthetically pleasing. But aesthetically pleasing images do at least engage the viewer. Whether or not the photographer wants to, or even cares if he doesn't, engage the viewer with his image, it's not reasonable to fault the viewer in the absence of a visually attractive* image.

This is why so many people find so little that is positive to say about Parr; his style is frequently neither visually appealing, nor visually far distinct from the marauding facebook masses.

Consuming this style of photography is a chore for most of us these days - thumbing through facebook albums and clicking "Like" on images which royally suck the big wiener, to stroke the egos of people we used to know. We're weary and disgusted at this puerile act of "friend" retention.

Then along comes Parr.

*Literally attractive, as in attracts and holds attention.
 
Now some of you are going to give me a lambasting here,but, if a picture does not "grab" me straight away, then I don`t go looking any further into it, I don`t go looking for artistic merit in something that does that grab my immediate attention. If just a little something grabs me, then I will look further into it. I struggle with arty farty type stuff, but will make the effort.

Now that may be a flaw in how I view things. Maybe not. But it does not make stuff that I am not interested in crap, nor does it make thee most wonderful thing known to mankind.

I think a few people are being far too harsh and some are being over protective in this thread. We are all different and all value different things, be that art or whatever.

Basically, stop behving like a bunch of school kids and go sort it out round the back of the bike shelter......:D
 
Pookeyhead said:
I think I'll let dod respond. You're just after a fight.
Click to expand...

Just so I understand what I'm talking about that picture is saying the family is white trash?
 
Pookeyhead said:
It's a social comment about the working class. It's meant to make you think why on earth people go on holiday to blackpool, or southend just to sit around stuffing their faces with chips... and furthermore, sit amongst a pile of used chip wrappers to eat their own chips, and then probably add to the pile of chip wrappers with no thought about what they've just done.

Does that not interest you?... why people do that? Do PEOPLE not interest you?

QUOTE]

what is it saying then ?
Click to expand...
 
specialman said:
Slightly OT from Parr, but relevant to the discussion relating to the reasons we take images...

I think a lot of people who use a camera in a considered manner (i.e because they want to be a photographer) are afraid to figure in context, as if it's a step too far towards being 'arty'. There are so many shots displayed on TP that have no background info, no story to tell from the photographer's angle, that the work gets lost in the deluge of work that's displayed in the different forums. If half of those works had context and back story applied, I honestly believe that more people would be inclined to think about why they're pressing the button...

I've always aimed to accompany my images with context, be it the journey to that final image or just notes to accompany the image in order to explain why I pressed the shutter. I kick myself that several of my flickr images aren't even titled - I will get round to changing that and filling in the blanks - because it matters that much to me. My images are an extension of me as a person; yes, it may be a dumb picture of a toy, lit fancily, or an image of a guy fishing, but it has a part to pay in who I am and why i continue with this picture-taking lark. Without that context and explanation the images mean nothing to no-one.

We're expressing ourselves through the action of choosing apertures, shutter speeds and whatever else we do to our camera to get exposure, so why not reveal to others our motivations for expression?

I love looking through the crit sections on TP but more often than not, I'm faced with images that although technically good, often leave me cold because there's nothing to help me understand what motivated the photographer. I really want to know why people take the shot they take. Take many of the 365-type projects... some posters openly admit that these projects are merely exercises to help them understand technique, but there are many who seem to be shooting for the sake of shooting. There's no effort to explain the shot or give context. And in many cases, the comments posted after each new image seem like some kind of love-in where it's all 'great capture' and 'nice shot' without anyone doing any digging. That really frustrates me because ultimately, if someone did ask the pertinent questions, I'm pretty sure there would be some great insight given.

A bit hypocritically, there are some images that just wow me without any backstory being present, but more often than not, I'll enquire about aspects of the image and it's great when the OP opens up and reveals info about the shot. Effectively, they're providing the backstory on demand as opposed to giving it away for free. It all works out as the same in the end though - enlightenment.
Click to expand...

Its perhaps its not what your reffering to as "context" but I'm guessing that alot of the resentment in this thread stems from the reverse situation at the high end, the idea that "social commentary" or "conceptional art" alone is worthy of being considered "high art".

If I head over to say the Guadians photography section how much focus do you think I'll find on say landscape or wildlife photography? very little in my expereince, I remember reading there coverage of the wildlife photographer of the year and it was actually relegated to the "enviroment" section as if it wasnt worthy of being considered "real photograhy".

This isnt relegated to photography of course but I think photography is really a battleground were a modern art mindset and more classical ideas of art clash.
 
Moreorless said:
If I head over to say the Guadians photography section how much focus do you think I'll find on say landscape or wildlife photography? very little in my expereince, I remember reading there coverage of the wildlife photographer of the year and it was actually relegated to the "enviroment" section as if it wasnt worthy of being considered "real photograhy".

This isnt relegated to photography of course but I think photography is really a battleground were a modern art mindset and more classical ideas of art clash.
Click to expand...

It all goes back to people wanting different things from their art. I like a nice landscape, I can look at another picture of a bird taken from half a mile away with a huge lens and admire how sharp it is because the camera and lens is such good quality but it largely does nothing for me.
I want more than that from the things I spend time on. I want to be challenged, I want to see new ideas/perspective/viewpoints etc,.
 
dod said:
Just so I understand what I'm talking about that picture is saying the family is white trash?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't word it like that, but that whole book "The Last Resort" is a look at British seaside town culture and the people who holiday there, so essentially it becomes a look at the British working class as a result. That shot speaks volumes about places like New Brighton (where it was shot) especially in the 80s when it was shot (1984-6). The whole book is about the working class holiday-maker and the tacky seaside towns they went to back then (the social dynamic of these places has changed somewhat since then). It shows the run down nature of the place as these Victorian resorts struggle to survive as they go further and further down market in order to survive against cheap package holidays.

There's humour in there too though. I mean.. why would anyone sit there to eat their chips? It does show the resolute nature of the British working class... "I'm damn well going to have a good time" attitude. The same attitude that makes old people stay in their deck chairs, wrapped in coats and scarves when it's freezing. It's so uniquely British. :) At the same time though, we're horrified by anyone who can sit there and eat chips :) It's the duality of the work that makes it good IMO.

It's poking fun at the working class, but not in an outright cruel way. It's a little tongue in cheek. This is why these very saturated colours, bright fill flash and odd viewpoints work so well. It speaks very loudly of the British seaside resort because they are tacky, colourful and brightly lit.

If this shot was a careful study, in black and white....(straight horizons, rule of thirds.. the full camera club OCD list :) ) imagine it. Would it work on the same level? Would it not lose it's humour? It would only concentrate on the squalid nature of that bus shelter and look very serious indeed. There's something about shooting it in this style that while making fun of it, still retains enough humour to remind us that deep down, we all kind of love these places at some point in our lives.

I can't think of any way better to shoot this than the way Parr has done. His style is irreverent because his subject matter is.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
Photography seems include more anti-art opinions than any other creative group.
Click to expand...

That is because a lot of people who are drawn to photography are not creative and they think all you need is the best equipment to get great photos. You wouldn't tend to see non creative painters for example (unless they get obsessed with brush quality!)
The non-creative person would look at a shot and immediately concentrate on the focusing, sharpness, white balance etc,. and thinking about what the photographer was trying to portray would be secondary.

My wife is a very good example. She is very creative and produces good work but when it comes to photography she is only interested in overall look of the image and if it it pleasing to her from an artistic viewpoint. She wouldn't even know what lens was on the front of the camera as long as the camera isn't so bad that it hinders her. Yes, a basic understanding would make life easier for her but the fact her composition, lighting choices etc,. are all there make the shots good regardless.
 
Pookeyhead said:
If this shot was a careful study, in black and white....(straight horizons, rule of thirds.. the full camera club OCD list :) ) imagine it. Would it work on the same level? Would it not lose it's humour? It would only concentrate on the squalid nature of that bus shelter and look very serious indeed.
Click to expand...

Good point, and yes a black and white less snapshot version would be completely different. I may actually like it more as I tend to lean towards misery!
But the point is the exact same situation can be used to portray different feelings and reactions based on how the photographer chose to take the photo and that is what we need to be looking at and that is the creative bit.
 
ernesto said:
That is because a lot of people who are drawn to photography are not creative and they think all you need is the best equipment to get great photos.
Click to expand...

I think this is probably one explanation, yes. For a lot of people, it's the equipment and process that gets them interested and they never even consider that you need to be creative to produce good work.
 
Could it be our tradition of camera clubs? The minute you have a point system the rules of composition become laws. I found it stifling.
 
Pookeyhead said:
I wouldn't word it like that
Click to expand...

but that's what it is??

Sorry, I can only take that picture in the context I know it and how you've described it. On that basis I actually find it patronising and arrogant. Who the hell does he think he is to poke fun at people like that. That's not a question.

I didn't say it needs to be aesthetically appealing to be good. I said that I couldn't see what the message was and so the next thing I wanted for was something appealing in it to get my attention. There wasn't and because of all that, for me, this image doesn't work.

And on that note, I'm out.
 
matty said:
Matt... Chill out...it's a cracking debate, just takes moment or 2 to digest replies before getting uppity, pokey head has made some very valid comments in this thread and arguing his point well, he's not looking for a ruck.
Click to expand...

You're joking, right? I got suspended for defending my opinion, as have others in this thread to date. Mostly after being harassed about speaking their minds. There is one clear forced opinion in here drowning out all others. I can't believe people can't just let go of the fact some do not like it. I wasn't even one of those who used the word "hate". I believe everyone has a right to stick to their opinion though, and not be badgered on it like they'll somehow see the "light" and change their minds.

I mean, here we are, same few, now using the ol' "anyone who doesn't get it must be a mere gear head". Seriously? I'll leave it at that because ill be attacked and badgered for that frame of mind, ya know, my own.
 
Cagey75 said:
I mean, here we are, same few, now using the ol' "anyone who doesn't get it must be a mere gear head". Seriously?
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is saying that. The comment is more around photography can be of interest because of the gear and it can take a more primary part of it than the actual photos. Look at the most popular section of this forum for evidence of that.
Other art forms are not the same. Yes the brushes and chisels are important but they are not worthy of much discussion - just quickly pick up the right tool and off you go painting, chiseling, carving away.
 
ernesto said:
I don't think anyone is saying that. .
Click to expand...

They're not??? I think that's exactly what is being implied

ernesto said:
That is because a lot of people who are drawn to photography are not creative and they think all you need is the best equipment to get great photos.
Click to expand...

Pookeyhead said:
I think this is probably one explanation, yes. For a lot of people, it's the equipment and process that gets them interested and they never even consider that you need to be creative to produce good work.
Click to expand...


ernesto said:
Yes the brushes and chisels are important but they are not worthy of much discussion - just quickly pick up the right tool and off you go painting, chiseling, carving away.
Click to expand...

You think so? Just type best chisel into google :D :LOL:

http://www.woodworkuk.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=839
 
dod said:
They're not??? I think that's exactly what is being implied
Click to expand...

No, they are not and that is not what I am implying. A lot of people taking photos are not very creative (I count myself in that group) and are more interested in the gear than looking at photos (I don't count myself in that group)

I see the same in my other hobbies of cycling and guitar playing. Both are very equipment based and some people are more interested in the bike, guitar or amp that actually improving their riding or their playing.
 
dod said:
no, just different. :)
Click to expand...

I need to withdraw my statement. Having just read a Nikon v Canon debate elsewhere on the forum, it is evident that no-one is sadder than us.
 
ernesto said:
It all goes back to people wanting different things from their art. I like a nice landscape, I can look at another picture of a bird taken from half a mile away with a huge lens and admire how sharp it is because the camera and lens is such good quality but it largely does nothing for me.
I want more than that from the things I spend time on. I want to be challenged, I want to see new ideas/perspective/viewpoints etc,.
Click to expand...

I'm not really seeing this as any different from people disliking Parr's work.

You can of course point to many thousands of images on the net that don't offer anything new to such a subject but then again I could point to the same reguarding bad instagram pics and the like that ineffectively look to provide some kind of social comment.

A wildlife photographer of real skill can obviously add more than that though by choosing the composition and lighting of his shots and the actions of his subject.

You want to be intellectually challanged as a viewer of art but is this the only prerequisite for "good art"?
 
Last edited:
I think TP and it's membership are very much gear orientated. It is reflected in the excitement over "sharpness" that is prevalent. It is even used as the only term in critiquing photos quite often. Browsing through the photos here shows up a lot of techinically good photography but often the creative bit is missing. Even in the creative section! I think that is why we get a lot of negativity towards the more artistic side of photography that may not necessarily conform to the conventional "rules" and techniques. In that way, as was stated above, it is quite like a traditional photography society. All about technique, rules and being seen to have the best gear. And there may alos be a bit of a problem with cliques. :)

As for Martin Parr, some of his stuff is irreverential and amusing, some is dull. It often makes good comment on his subject though.
 
Byker28i said:
John gay wasnt British. He took a British name then documented the British way of life. You'll find I referenced him on page 1?
I bought one of his books recently, England observed. Very good and inspiring for a recent project.

Txema salvans is another, he has a great set of people stealing moments of leisure time in odd bits of beaches, between industrial areas, plus other interesting images.
http://www.txemasalvans.com/cas/index.html
Click to expand...

His books are filed in Amazon under:-

Books > Travel & Holiday > Speciality Travel > Gay & Lesbian

:thinking: !!
 
menthel said:
I think TP and it's membership are very much gear orientated. It is reflected in the excitement over "sharpness" that is prevalent. It is even used as the only term in critiquing photos quite often. Browsing through the photos here shows up a lot of techinically good photography but often the creative bit is missing. Even in the creative section! I think that is why we get a lot of negativity towards the more artistic side of photography that may not necessarily conform to the conventional "rules" and techniques. In that way, as was stated above, it is quite like a traditional photography society. All about technique, rules and being seen to have the best gear. And there may alos be a bit of a problem with cliques. :)
Click to expand...

Every photography forum on the net discusses same, and has their "cliques" ^^ - they all have the gear sections of course. And it's hard to stay out of them as they are always the most active - and why not? we're always looking for new gear to help bring out the best in our work - even hobbiests! [<-- not a word apparently, acc to google]

I'd be willing to bet if we were all painters, there would be a section on the types of brushes/paint/canvases you use an' all ;)
 
Last edited:
Moreorless said:
I'm not really seeing this as any different from people disliking Parr's work.

You can of course point to many thousands of images on the net that don't offer anything new to such a subject but then again I could point to the same reguarding bad instagram pics and the like that ineffectively look to provide some kind of social comment.

A wildlife photographer of real skill can obviously add more than that though by choosing the composition and lighting of his shots and the actions of his subject.

You want to be intellectually challanged as a viewer of art but is this the only prerequisite for "good art"?
Click to expand...

Where did I say anything about it being good art and that all art should challenge everyone? I am saying what I like from my art, that is all.
You will also notice that I am not saying that wildlife pictures are crap, they just don't do anything for me and they are not something I want to spend time looking at.
 
Cagey75 said:
Every photography forum on the net discusses same ^^ - they all have the gear sections of course. And it's hard to stay out of them as they are always the most active - and why not? we're always looking for new gear to help bring out the best in our work - even hobbiests! [<-- not a word apparently, acc to google]

I'd be willing to bet if we were all painters, there would be a section on the types of brushes/paint/canvases you use an' all ;)
Click to expand...

Very true, but non creative people wouldn't get into painting in the first place as it relies on it.
The constant need for new gear is a need in itself and largely nothing to do with getting the best out of your shots. Lets face it, a basic DSLR with cheap lenses will be more than good enough.
 
Ed Sutton said:
Hobbyists. :)
Click to expand...

Ahaha, cheers! I knew it was, brain-not-working-great-today, got some kind of virus :puke:

ernesto, would it surprise you to know that I was a sketcher/painter for years before really getting into photography? Keep meaning to get back to it, it was like my therapy! The photography replaced it really, as I love it for the creative and expressive side much more than the technical. I just happen to like gadgets [probably comes from my gamer side] also.

I bet most on here are the same, I wouldn't like to assume, but I would like to imagine.
 
Cagey75 said:
Ahaha, cheers! I knew it was, brain-not-working-great-today, got some kind of virus :puke:

ernesto, would it surprise you to know that I was a sketcher/painter for years before really getting into photography? Keep meaning to get back to it, it was like my therapy! The photography replaced it really, as I love it for the creative and expressive side much more than the technical. I just happen to like gadgets [probably comes from my gamer side] also.

I bet most on here are the same, I wouldn't like to assume, but I would like to imagine.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't surprise me, but then as I don't know you from Adam I wouldn't have a clue what you have done in your life. You may even be Martin Parr for all I know :)

I may have a less positive view on photographers being former artists, or even interested in art, and I have even seen it said on this forum that some people don't even count photography as an art form, but we can hope.
 
I'm sure many would look at my flickr stream [which barely represents maybe 5% of what i shoot, which is daily] and think "crap, hate them" - But it really wouldn't bother me. Might annoy me a little, but that's about it. I wouldn't go off at them that they don't get it.

I think you have to please you first off, and if others happen to like it too, bonus! Unless of course you're paid to do a specific job/style/shoot - then it's just business.

I'm sure Parr doesn't care that some of us don't like his work, I really am. I doubt he himself would attempt to sway us, he'd just think maybe, we're not his target audience? or, we have alternative tastes.
 
ernesto said:
...some people don't even count photography as an art form, but we can hope.
Click to expand...

Photography isn't an art form any more than painting or printmaking is, it's a medium. How a medium is used is what determines if a work is art or not.
 
Okay, some people don't even think photography can be an art form
 
rjbell said:
Could it be our tradition of camera clubs? The minute you have a point system the rules of composition become laws. I found it stifling.
Click to expand...

Of course, it's bound to happen. If you "score" people on their composition for example, it implies that there must be "rules" to composition, so everyone just tries to strictly adhere to those rules, and the result is no variance. Nothing new will ever happen ever again if everyone has to adhere to strict rules of composition.

dod said:
They're not??? I think that's exactly what is being implied
Click to expand...

I am NOT saying anyone who doesn't get it is a gear head, what I'm saying is that it's not uncommon for that to happen. Would you argue that is not the case?... that everyone who starts in this hobby does so for creative reasons alone?


Cagey75 said:
even hobbiests! [<-- not a word apparently, acc to google]
Click to expand...

Not if you spell it like that :)

dod said:
Sorry, I can only take that picture in the context I know it and how you've described it. On that basis I actually find it patronising and arrogant. Who the hell does he think he is to poke fun at people like that. That's not a question.
Click to expand...

He's a photographer, and he's observing people and making satirical commentary on our quirky little British foibles. We all recognise parts of ourselves in those photos. If it addresses any kind of balance, he has given the same treatment to the other end of the social scale too.

If we can't laugh at ourselves, then god help us.

dod said:
And on that note, I'm out.
Click to expand...

:wave:
 
I think that shows as much a weakness in google's spell checker as my actual terrible spelling ability :p
 
Great thread..

Its like swimming against the tide though.

I'd like to be able to say that for some people, photography is all about the tools, or its all about capturing sports events, or its all about capturing an object like a bird/animal, or its all about the wedding...the gig....getting paid, but it seems not to be as simple as that.
They all have one thing in common though, they can appreciate each others "art", but when it come to feelings, self expression, social observation through photography, they find it much tougher to quantify, assess......appreciate.

I think you have to accept that for some people that won't change, it means what it means to them, I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
 
back to the poll..........


I am waiting until Thursday do decide on how I feel just in case I get a card off MP.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top