Martin Parr, love him or hate him?

[MWHCVT]

Cannot vote as there is not an option that is suitable for my views

 

[maninsuitcase]

I know.. quite depressing. Why does everything have to be pretty, and loaded with technical excellence.

Touch unfair I feel. No it doesn't have to be perfect, or deliberately not perfect. Or anything.

Tastes differ, I just find this guys work plain and un-interesting for the most part. I never have been and never will be an arty person, I just don't get it. But I still appreciate some art works on their own merit.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Touch unfair I feel.

Yet it's fair for people in here to not only say they don't like Parr (perfectly acceptable) but to decry it as crap, and even go so far to say that it's so crap that it's harming the public's perception of the "industry"? LOL

OK.


Slight whiff of double standards if you ask me.

Tastes differ, I just find this guys work plain and un-interesting for the most

In your opinion. Just as I feel that 10stop grads and milky waterfalls, and kids.. and wire wool and HDR are uninspiring and derivative. (shrug)

Yet somehow I'm unfair, yet it's OK to tear into Parr and suggest that he's harming the "profession"... yeah.. OK. (and yes.. I know it wasn't you who said that).

 

[treeman]

David,

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.

A fair point, but I'm not so sure people differentiate between the different types of photographer though.

In fact, the only connection is that he uses a camera.

So his he an artist that just happens to use a camera?

His work is about satire and parody.

of who, the public or photographers?

It's not about technique.

That's fine, I've no problem with that.

Yes.. he uses a snapshot aesthetic, but it's a considered approach.

You mean considering whether he can fool you all into thinking its art?

It's not that he couldn't take a "proper" photograph if he wanted to.

I've no idea what a "proper" photograph is, though I'm sure he could take a picture that needed some thought, and a degree of photographic knowledge, just would be nice to see them.

Don't get me wrong, credit where credits due, if you can make a living out of producing carp and fooling everyone, fair play to him, wish I could.

You'll be telling me Tracy Emin and Damien Hirst are great artists next

 

[Pookeyhead]

David,

A fair point, but I'm not so sure people differentiate between the different types of photographer though.

I'm sure they do. No one would think "Hmm... if only I had someone like Martin Parr to shoot my wedding"

So his he an artist that just happens to use a camera?

I suppose you could say that if you wanted to. However, such a statement would indicate that you think a photographer can not be an artist, and therefore he has to be an artist that uses a camera. He's a photographer, and photography can be art as much as any other medium can be.

of who, the public or photographers?

In Last Resort, he is parodying the British Seaside Holiday Maker. In Home and Abroad, he's actually parodying the photographers as much as the photographed. One of the things I love about Parr is his self-deprication.

You mean considering whether he can fool you all into thinking its art?

No.. I do not mean that. Why would he need to "fool" you into thinking it's art?

I've no idea what a "proper" photograph is, though I'm sure he could take a picture that needed some thought, and a degree of photographic knowledge, just would be nice to see them.

Why... plenty of those around already. Why would you want Parr to take stuff that everyone else is doing? He wouldn't be Parr then would he. If you want to look at something else... then do so

Don't get me wrong, credit where credits due, if you can make a living out of producing carp and fooling everyone, fair play to him, wish I could.

Well... who's the bigger fool? If you genuinely think his work is crap.... who's laughing at who? He's rich and famous, and you're not.

Seriously though... not liking something doesn't make it crap. If it was derivative and clearly just copying something millions of other people are doing, then yes.. it coudl be dismissed as crap, but if you're gonna call something crap, at least have something more than not liking it as your rationale.

You'll be telling me Tracy Emin and Damien Hirst are great artists next

Not a fan of Hirst, but of course he's a great artist. Art can be about testing people's acceptance of what is art in the first place. If that's his remit, then he's done a capital job, because he's got under your skin. Tracy Emin? Undoubtedly so, yes. Is her work technically masterful? Of course not!!! Is that the point? Of course not. You're making the mistake of thinking that art has to be created through great technical mastery...it doesn't... that's craft... and is not necessary for art. When craft and art come together in someone like Tim Walker or Ruvan Afanador, then it's exquisite, yes... but art can live alone by the concept that created it, and sometimes, eschewing the established standards of craft that some peopel demand (clearly like yourself) is exactly what is required to make the point.

Parr is irreverant, satirical and whimsical.. so let me ask you.. exactly WHAT photographic style shoudl he have used to get the message across? Perhaps something like Cartier Bresson? Winnogrand? Stieglitz? LOL

 

[redhed17]

I have no feelings of love or hate towards Martin Parr so I didn't vote. :shake:

As for his work, it does nothing for me from what I have seen of it.

I don't feel the need to see a persons body of work to understand it. And I don't think I should have needed to, to have an opinion of the pictures I've seen. :shrug: I either like an image or not. I shouldn't need a back story either. Nobody needs to see my catalogue of images to decide if they like a particular image or not. :shrug: Most decide to :shrug: straight away.

Martin Parr is very successful, so there are people willing to pay a lot of money for his work.

 

[Daryl]

Erm, who's Martin Parr???

Is the train grave yard still at Barry Island?

 

[Cagey75]

Talking of big balls. This guy has to deal with volatile drunk people in the mix too. Very brave.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/maciejdakowicz/sets/1391696/

That guy is either 7ft tall and built like tank, or has a death wish! Could be any town really, but we just don't see images like this as nobody has the balls to go out and take them. Fair play to him.

 

[toadstool]

I love Martin Parr and the later mentioned Maciej Dakowicz. I looked at both a hell of a lot in college and they're right up my street

 

[desf]

I like Parr's stuff.

Salgado is pretty good too.

 

[SimonH]

Well... who's the bigger fool? If you genuinely think his work is crap.... who's laughing at who? He's rich and famous, and you're not.

I'd never heard of him :shrug: But being rich and famous doesn't make him good, it makes him successful. I don't personally equate the two, though I accept that some do.

Seriously though... not liking something doesn't make it crap.

But it being alternative, obscure and Marmite-esque doesn't actually make it good either.

Not a fan of Hirst, but of course he's a great artist. Art can be about testing people's acceptance of what is art in the first place. If that's his remit, then he's done a capital job, because he's got under your skin.

I'm not a fan of Hirst either. I wouldn't personally describe him as a great artist, though. Rich, successful, famous, but not great.

But Hirst stands a much greater chance of getting under my skin than Martin Parr, because Parr's work has left me completely cold. Not because I think his work is crap, but because it doesn't speak to me at all. From what I've seen so far, I don't expect I could pick out a single image from his work in my sister's flickr stream. For me to describe an artist as great (art appreciation is subjective, at the end of the day) his/her work needs at least to have had me by the collar and whispered in my ear. On *some* level, at least.

Perhaps it's because I haven't seen much of his work yet. Perhaps it's because I'm just not open-minded enough to embrace the Parr artistic experience. Perhaps I'm just not sucker-punch-drunk, I dunno. But so far, in my own long list of great artists and photographers, I can't justify pencilling him in yet. :shrug:

Not saying this to be contentious, just have never been able to get giddy about the value/significance of an artist's work on someone else's say-so. What doesn't speak to me, to me just doesn't speak. :|

 

[FruitFlakes]

I like his work, and going by the Klein + Moriyama exhibition that was at the Tate a few weeks ago he has an amazing collection of photo books. I'm pretty sure he could crank out perfect landscapes if he wanted to, but he works within that satirical snapshot aesthetic pretty well. Also the snapshot look is actually quite commercially popular right now, Jake Stangel is a good example (he's often featured in 'ones to watch' lists) and I remember companies like Converse, Nike, Adidas and Vans running campaigns that had a lo fi look to them as well. Terry Richardson does well out of it too, and he's equally capable doing full on editorial shoots.

 

[Byker28i]

Are you part of Magnum?

Nope, but I'm very aware of a lot of their work. There was a great exhibition At one of the dealers in London called magnum 62 featuring images from all of the magnum photographers.
edit: Chris Beatles was the dealer.

Plus if you notice at the top, I did say I studied the photographers listed as part of my course, and no they aren't all magnum.

 

[Byker28i]

That guy is either 7ft tall and built like tank, or has a death wish! Could be any town really, but we just don't see images like this as nobody has the balls to go out and take them. Fair play to him.

Dakowicz spent five years photographing Cardiff nightlife every weekend, a really interesting study of modern English leisure time and fits right in if we are discussing parr purely for his study of the English.

Parrs last resort series we're taken at a time when a lot of the social documentary photography was black and white, so not only did his colour images stand out, but also he was heavily criticised for exploiting and patronising the working class's through his images. There are some stunning stand out images. The often shown ice cream girl, but there's others such as the family eating fish and chips in a shelter, next to a bin overflowing with used chip papers, that are also all over the floor. The white chip wrappers juxtaposing against the family almost shouts white trash.

Don't know if there still is, but the Victoria and Albert museum has a collection of his work.

 

[Pookeyhead]

I'd never heard of him :shrug: But being rich and famous doesn't make him good, it makes him successful. I don't personally equate the two, though I accept that some do.

What you edited from my quote was that I followed that sentence with "Seriously though..."

 

[rjbell]

Erm, who's Martin Parr???

Is the train grave yard still at Barry Island?

Nothings at barry island anymore.

 

[rjbell]

Dakowicz spent five years photographing Cardiff nightlife every weekend, a really interesting study of modern English leisure time and fits right in if we are discussing parr purely for his study of the English.

Parrs last resort series we're taken at a time when a lot of the social documentary photography was black and white, so not only did his colour images stand out, but also he was heavily criticised for exploiting and patronising the working class's through his images. There are some stunning stand out images. The often shown ice cream girl, but there's others such as the family eating fish and chips in a shelter, next to a bin overflowing with used chip papers, that are also all over the floor. The white chip wrappers juxtaposing against the family almost shouts white trash.

Don't know if there still is, but the Victoria and Albert museum has a collection of his work.

English leisure time. Cardiff is wales butt boyo!

 

[andya700]

I have just had a look at some of his work, and whilst I do not hate it (or him), it could just be another Flickr page, where someone has posted their holiday snaps.
If people wish to pay him lots of money for this, then good luck to him, but it is a bit bemusing why?
I am one of those people who does not like to be told what they should and what they shouldn't like, I would rather my own eyes made that decision for me, and I would rather not have to think to deeply about something to make a decision.
I remember back in Tracey Emin's heyday, someone trying to explain why her famous (infamous) "bed" works were so great, and it all came down to the fact that I "didn't understand them".
The thing about art IMO, is that you can see beauty/skill/imagination immediately - you don't have to go looking for it, or have it explained to you.

 

[Pookeyhead]

What is it about Parr's work that needs explaining? He examines the human condition. Simple. There's great skill and imagination... perhaps not so much beauty, no. Most people think art has to be beautiful. Do people have to be beautiful before you take them seriously? That would make you shallow wouldn't it?

 

[The23rdman]

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 b****x? 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.

Exactly.

 

[andya700]

What is it about Parr's work that needs explaining? He examines the human condition. Simple. There's great skill and imagination... perhaps not so much beauty, no. Most people think art has to be beautiful. Do people have to be beautiful before you take them seriously? That would make you shallow wouldn't it?

And your last comment is exactly what I would expect to hear from someone, who doesn't like the fact that there are people with differing views on what constitutes great art, or in this case photography (which can also be art).
Does the fact that I don't like or understand certain artists/art work make me "shallow"?

 

[a1ex2001]

Is the train grave yard still at Barry Island?

There is one train left as a sort of memorial all the others were taken by restoration groups and museums or recycled.

Remember spending hours down their as a kid playing in on and around all those old trains was slightly surreal looking back. Like someone had dumped the entire industrial revolution in a massive field!

Back on topic had a quick look at this Parr chap and I like the snapshot of British life he has captured, I'm not blown away or anything but it is at least interesting.

 

[POAH]

I'm cool with people not liking someone's work, but when they are dismissive yet have done nothing original to move photography on I take issue.

So unless you do something original you can't make comments ? Pretty sure that would exclude every one on this forum lol

 

[DG Phototraining]

Sorry to the arty-types here - but to us plain olde Yorkie folk its either good or crap - there is no... 'WOW what amazing work, I don't get it or like it, but I do appreciate its brilliance'

If we get it - we may like it, or it may still be crap

If we don't get it - we're unlikely to like it and hence its pretty certain to be crap

We are NEVER going to not 'get' it and not like it and yet think its brilliant

But being fair minded we don't mind you arty-types liking it and (in many cases) paying huge sums of money for it, gives us something to laugh at, so thanks

Dave

 

[POAH]

I don't get any art or books etc. I either enjoy he story like the painting or photograph. I don't look for meaning or what the person was trying to do. I really don't care about it. I don't have to justify why I like/dislike and I don't have to listen to arty farty types telling me why I'm "wrong".

There is no counter argument to this stance. I looked up said photographer and found most of what I found to be saturated snaps of he beach/holiday makers. Do I hate them? No but I don't think they are great either. My holiday snaps get put on the wall not other people's.

 

[Cagey75]

People do not have to like it. I'm on the fence with Parr's work, I think the guy who shoots Cardiff has more interesting shots, and it's basically just capturing the scum of the night club scene ... He makes me want to grab a 35mm and just go shoot street!


There's way too much forced opinion on this site.

 

[The23rdman]

So unless you do something original you can't make comments ? Pretty sure that would exclude every one on this forum lol

Um, no. As stated I've no issue with people not liking anything. It is the dismissal of someone's body of work as crap because they don't get it that I take issue with. As I said before this has happened with other respected and great photographers here.

Too many people fail to reference the past masters and pay their dues. Again, for the hard of hearing, I've no problem with that, but expect to be called up for it by those who have done due diligence.

 

[Ed Sutton]

A couple of points.

I think Parr has moments of genius. He does make photographs which are well lit, well composed and make a point. Give that a try and you'll see how difficult it is to achieve. However, he also shows a LOT of pictures. Which is why some find it hard to believe he is as good as others say.

The Last Resort is a traditionally made photobook. One image per spread, and something like 40 in total. He wasn't using the highly saturated style of later years, either. Think of England is page after page of unremitting brightly coloured, often confusing images, sometimes two or four to a spread with no border between them. Some of the photos are 'snaps' others are cleverly framed.

A different photographer would have edited the photos down to show only the stand-out shots, but Parr lets the entire series serve as the work. The overall effect is what counts. Same with Common Sense, which is still on show at the Tate in Liverpool, and which has a completely different effect on you seeing it on a wall as a large grid than in print or on a screen. Again you could pick out single images as better than the others, but that's not the point.

However, much as I admire Parr, I feel that he is in danger of becoming a parody of himself, though, simply because his style is so recognisable and he is so prolific. You hear the name and know what to expect. There's certainly a hint of repetition in his work these days, but that's inevitable and not a criticism.

My second point is that you shouldn't dismiss work on first viewing. Certainly not without reading up on what is behind it. Revisit it, take time to live with it, and it might click. I thought Nan Goldin's stuff was self indulgent 'crap' for years, but I took the plunge and bought a cheap book of here work and started to 'get' it.

Of course this can work in reverse. Like many of my age admired the work of Cartier-Bresson and André Kertész and was undeniably influenced by it. After almost 40 years I've been changing my mind somewhat. I always preferred Kertész, but now I have fathomed out why, and why I now find Cartier-Bresson rather cold and calculated, and (for all his humanism) disconnected from people. Which is not a criticism you could level at Parr!

Don't restrict yourselves to looking at work that immediately appeals to you. If there's something you think is garbage but is widely regarded try and work out why that is instead of dismissing it out of hand.

 

[HopefulM]

well, they're well exposed and have good dof, but other than that they don't work for me.

 

[andya700]

Sorry to the arty-types here - but to us plain olde Yorkie folk its either good or crap - there is no... 'WOW what amazing work, I don't get it or like it, but I do appreciate its brilliance'

If we get it - we may like it, or it may still be crap

If we don't get it - we're unlikely to like it and hence its pretty certain to be crap

We are NEVER going to not 'get' it and not like it and yet think its brilliant

But being fair minded we don't mind you arty-types liking it and (in many cases) paying huge sums of money for it, gives us something to laugh at, so thanks

Dave

 

[Stuart M]

Sorry to the arty-types here - but to us plain olde Yorkie folk its either good or crap - there is no... 'WOW what amazing work, I don't get it or like it, but I do appreciate its brilliance'

If we get it - we may like it, or it may still be crap

If we don't get it - we're unlikely to like it and hence its pretty certain to be crap

We are NEVER going to not 'get' it and not like it and yet think its brilliant

But being fair minded we don't mind you arty-types liking it and (in many cases) paying huge sums of money for it, gives us something to laugh at, so thanks

Dave

I agree with this. Rothko's 'Orange, Red, Yellow sold for a record price of over $86 million last year. I have long been convinced that he was taking the p*** when he painted it and he's still taking the p*** today even though he's been dead for 43 years.

 

[ernesto]

Well done to all those who rather than accepting that they "don't get it" would rather brush it aside as crap and justify it to themselves.
All tastes are different and nobodies tastes are crap. Worth quite a few of you watching a three parter that Grayson Perry did last year expoloring tastes across the classes. He showed a really open mind and the series actually changed my view of why people like certain things but most importantly there is no right or wrong.


And before you ask who Grayson Perry is, he is one of those artists you would no doubt think is crap!

 

[Cagey75]

More lecturing? seriously!? Come on, people are allowed think it's crap if they so please.

I don't, I'm not sure what I think about his 'work' to be honest. But if I thought it crap, I'd say so, and wouldn't expect to be lectured for how I feel on it.

I thought Warhol was full of crap, but some paid millions for his works of ... er... am I wrong? nope. Just how I feel on it.

 

[Stuart M]

Grayson Perry is a very strange man who, I'll happily admit, I shall never understand until the day I die. He inhabits a different astral plane to me. In short ... he's quite bonkers.

Nice ceramics though!

 

[simonblue]

I have spoken to Mr Parr,you know a lot of you are now of his Christmas card list

 

[rpsmith79]

More lecturing? seriously!? Come on, people are allowed think it's crap if they so please.

I don't, I'm not sure what I think about his 'work' to be honest. But if I thought it crap, I'd say so, and wouldn't expect to be lectured for how I feel on it.

I thought Warhol was full of crap, but some paid millions for his works of ... er... am I wrong? nope. Just how I feel on it.

Very well said

 

[ernesto]

More lecturing? seriously!? Come on, people are allowed think it's crap if they so please.

I don't, I'm not sure what I think about his 'work' to be honest. But if I thought it crap, I'd say so, and wouldn't expect to be lectured for how I feel on it.

I thought Warhol was full of crap, but some paid millions for his works of ... er... am I wrong? nope. Just how I feel on it.

That is just because you "don't get it"

 

[Cagey75]

Enlighten me then, because I feel that I do, it's just not something I would say is amazing, nor terrible.

 

[simonblue]

More lecturing? seriously!? Come on, people are allowed think it's crap if they so please.

I don't, I'm not sure what I think about his 'work' to be honest. But if I thought it crap, I'd say so, and wouldn't expect to be lectured for how I feel on it.

I thought Warhol was full of crap, but some paid millions for his works of ... er... am I wrong? nope. Just how I feel on it.

Warhol was crap ,i think you are allow to think what you like about anybody photos.

 

[ernesto]

Enlighten me then, because I feel that I do, it's just not something I would say is amazing, nor terrible.

Enlighten you on Warhol?, you have already said it was full of crap. Are you sure you even want to get it?