Martin Parr, love him or hate him?

[Steve]

back to the poll..........


I am waiting until Thursday do decide on how I feel just in case I get a card off MP.

Spoke to him earlier...he said it's in the post

 

[Pookeyhead]

but when it come to feelings, self expression, social observation through photography, they find it much tougher to quantify, assess......appreciate.

Maybe that's important actually. If your relationship with photography is a hobbyist one, where you grew up reading amateur photographer for example, then joined a camera club, started entering competitions at club level, started to gain confidence and respect from your camera club peers etc. Then that is what you know and you will judge other photography by these same conservative standards.

Someone mentioned in a previous post about points systems in camera club judging, and that's a good example of what I mean. In order to have a point system (something quite a few camera clubs I've been to have when judging) you need to have criteria by which to award points. So... x number of points for the subject on a third, x number of points for having something leading the eye in, x number of points for this, that, the other.
Many think this sensible, but people quickly learn that in order to win, you have to comply to a set of fixed compositional rules, and the result is a bunch of images that are all tightly restricted by rules... so they all look the same. That's not creativity, that's conformity .

If you've been brought up with that though, anything that breaks rules is obviously going to seem crap to you. After all, you've spent your life chasing straight lines, things on thirds, and other such restrictions in order to win all your competitions, and when something arrives that challenges that, your first reaction may well be "so who's this young upstart earning a fortune with his wonky horizons!!! ...what a load of crap" You'll hate anything that breaks rules if that's how you've been brought up photographically because you'll start to feel that perhaps outside of the camera club world where you are now a big deal, there's another world where people don't give a toss about rules, where free thinking, creativity and innovation are King, and that makes you uncomfortable.. because you're not equipped to deal with that, and you'd not be a big deal in that world.. you'd be out of your comfort zone. You'd reject it automatically.

This is why I hate most camera clubs. They kill creativity. They actually train people out of creativity, unless it can be fitted into a prescriptive way of thinking.

I'm convinced that most people don't even understand what creativity is. (that's not a disparaging comment by the way, it's to say that some have a fixed idea of what it is that has no flexibility in it).

I find it amusing that we have to have a separate "creative" section What does THAT say about the mindset prevalent in here? Are it's contents actually more creative than what's in the other forums? If not.. what is it actually for?

 

[dod]

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

Unfortunately I can't ignore that point.

Laughing at ourselves is fine, because we choose to. That family wasn't given the choice, they were made the butt of a joke to be laughed at, not with. Do you think they'd have been happy if they'd known they were to be the subject of a photo portraying them as white trash?? Do you think they'd have said "Yeah Martin, I want to be laughed at like that"?

You attempt to make it sound as if it's all quaint and harmless and it's okay as he attacks "the other end of the social scale too". It's actually quite distasteful and quite frankly if that's art I'll stick to being a gear head.

This time I'm definitely out. I've already wasted too much time on this "art".

 

[Ed Sutton]

That family wasn't given the choice, they were made the butt of a joke to be laughed at, not with.

This might surprise you, but I don't laugh at any of the people in The Last Resort. The pictures make me smile and I find some of them quite touching.

I don't see 'white trash', I see people doing what people do at the seaside. Enjoying their day out.

Maybe that's because I was brought up in a northern seaside town.

 

[rpsmith79]

This might surprise you, but I don't laugh at any of the people in The Last Resort. The pictures make me smile and I find some of them quite touching.

I don't see 'white trash', I see people doing what people do at the seaside. Enjoying their day out.

Maybe that's because I was brought up in a northern seaside town.

So you just see a holiday snap then, like has been said many times in this thread, that is all i see too, and that does not interest me and a lot of other people too by the looks of things

 

[ernesto]

You see it as a holiday snap because you are missing the point.

 

[Ed Sutton]

So you just see a holiday snap then

No. I see a documentary photograph. A holiday snap probably wouldn't have the litter in the shot for one thing. I mean, who wants to see litter in a photograph?

 

[Moreorless]

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.

..of course anyone can like what they please but there seemed to be a pretty clear bent to your post and several others that areas of photography like wildlife were really just a question of gear with limated artist input. The reality is I can head to say a rangefinder forum and find any number of uninspired street pics taken by gearheads with Leica's replacing expensive DSLR.

Whether it was intended or not that kind of senitment is IMHO what drives alot of the resentment agenst work like Parr's. Not just that its something people choose not to like but that there treated as philistines who don't "get it" for preffering a more classical approach to art.

I'm not talking POAH here, I think he's just out to troll.

 

[tiler65]

My card hasn't arrived yet!

 

[norters]

This might surprise you, but I don't laugh at any of the people in The Last Resort. The pictures make me smile and I find some of them quite touching.

I don't see 'white trash', I see people doing what people do at the seaside. Enjoying their day out.

Maybe that's because I was brought up in a northern seaside town.

Agree with this entirely. All through The Last Resort I see honest to goodness working class northern folk enjoying themselves. I see myself and my family. When my friends would jet off to Spain my family and I would toddle along to New Brighton, or Blackpool. That's all we could afford but hell, we made the most of it and had a good time. The same as the folks in Parr's work.

To me it's one of the most important pieces of work from a British photographer but as seen in this thread, many, MANY people disagree. And that's ok I guess. One thing it certainly is not is crap.

 

[ernesto]

..of course anyone can like what they please but there seemed to be a pretty clear bent to your post and several others that areas of photography like wildlife were really just a question of gear with limated artist input. The reality is I can head to say a rangefinder forum and find any number of uninspired street pics taken by gearheads with Leica's replacing expensive DSLR.

Whether it was intended or not that kind of senitment is IMHO what drives alot of the resentment agenst work like Parr's. Not just that its something people choose not to like but that there treated as philistines who don't "get it" for preffering a more classical approach to art.

Of course people can prefer less challenging and more conventional art, I enjoy the paintings of the likes of Titian which are pretty conventional. However I also look to explore the less traditional with an open mind and that is the part that can be missing from those set on "it doesn't fit within my convention so it is therefore crap"

 

[Moreorless]

Of course people can prefer less challenging and more conventional art, I enjoy the paintings of the likes of Titian which are pretty conventional. However I also look to explore the less traditional with an open mind and that is the part that can be missing from those set on "it doesn't fit within my convention so it is therefore crap"

....and the reverse is just as true, "it doesnt fit in with my idea of challenging therefore its crap", that mindset from both sides drives resentment.

Of course more conventional art need not be "unchallanging" either in its comsumption or espeically its creation. A viewer can recognise the elements that go towards creating the amosphere of a landscape shot for example.

Many would argue that the elements you find "challanging" about such pictures are often unmerited atempts to link fairly simplistic peices of work to much more intelligent social commentary or philsophical concepts.

 

[POAH]

exactly what I came up with as a way to describe MP work while on my little vacation :|

This is just one of those discussions that will never end. The same arguments and couter arguments will be said over and over again and the discussion will stagnat.

There are those that like MP's work and those that don't.


TBH I'm surprised the thread has not been locked for running its course.

They may well be the deliberate implementation of a particular style but they look like something you'd see on facebook any day. :shrug:

 

[ernesto]

....and the reverse is just as true, "it doesnt fit in with my idea of challenging therefore its crap", that mindset from both sides drives resentment.

I haven't seen evidence of that here although agree it would exist amongst the snobby/pretentious fringe. (I am still working hard to get into that group and almost there now )

 

[maninsuitcase]

Having initially sworn my self off this thread I spent this lunch reading through again. I think I am beginning to understand Parrs work. Maybe.

Having read the explanations of some work post earlier I can see the meaning in the images once it's laid before me. I struggle to see this my self either because of distracting elements that draw attention away, or just through lay of understanding. Maybe I need to spend some time in a gallery with someone who can explain it to me and help me learn to see.

I did do an art GCSE at school but even then struggled with the whole meaning/"seeing" side. I took this to mean I wasn't arty. Maybe it just means I wasn't really looking, or looking with my autistic side (mild aspergers, I score 34ish on an AQ test) which likes things to be the same.

As a result of the above I am very interested in the gear side, and have been on everything I've been involved in over the years and will research equipment and areas of photography endlessly with out doing much about it. This may make me a gear head, but it's not solely who I am, there is much I enjoy about photography out side the equipment. I think it dangerous to label people in such a black and white way, though I often do my self as I tend towards absolutes as a result of my ASD.

Incidentally I started photography to try and be more creative and move away from mere snap shots. The gear came as I grew frustrated by not being able to capture what I saw. Also interesting is as the gears gotten better my vision has gotten worse. Go figure.

All of which seems to say I don't like Parrs work as I don't understand it, not because it's bad.

 

[Cagey75]

TBH I'm surprised the thread has not been locked for running its course.

Same, it's just been going around in circles for ages. Parr isn't interesting enough for this attention.