Saying you like someones photos or saying you are not impressed when someone is a so called "famous photographer" is not the same as discussing a members back catalogue.
Yes, it is... it's exactly the same! The only difference is one is on here, so you may actually have to face teh person who's work you are panning, and the other is a safe option, because, so far as we know, Martin Parr isn't a forum member.
No other difference.
These photographers are in the public eye and as such are different. The mods where not using double standards you were just not following the rules.
Anyone who posts anything on the internet is in the public eye
have you not realised that? Absolutely anyone can see anything you post, and can comment on it any time they like.
I await your random pointless rant reply
Fine.... if you think common sense is pointless.
Yet it's ok for the OP to ask us if we Hate Parr, but we aren't allowed to say we think his work is crap, very few people seem to have picked up on this point
You can HATE his work all you want... that is not the same as dismissing it as crap though. I HATE jazz music, but I'm not stupid enough to think it's crap... as saying that makes me look like a luddite.. as it's clearly not: Millions of people love jazz, and clearly it's not crap.. I just happen to hate it.
It's a simple distinction to make, and I'm surprised you all aren't getting it if I'm honest.
I'm sure you'd get the same response from the Mods if you told someone you hated them in the Crit section because you didn't like their work
You probably would. I assume however, as no one in here actually knows Martin Parr, that he meant hating the work, not the person.
I think it's funny that modern art, which at its inception was a response/reaction to photography,
No it wasn't
It was rebelling against traditional art (and at the time, traditional art dismissed photography utterly as an art form) "Modern Art" stems from Fauvism, and has it's roots clearly in a rebellion against Pictorialism. "Modern Art" dates back to the early 19h century with Expressionism and Fauvism... it's not actually modern at all.
Modern art is not one movement. It started with Impressionism, then expressionism, fauvism, surrealism, cubism and Dada. It's always been a reaction to established art forms or a reaction to totalitarianism, and utterly rejects formality, and when the modern art movements formed, photography was seen as nothing more than a curiosity, or at best an artless, scientific process to record things. It wasn't until early pioneers like Atget, towards the end of the 19th century started to create stuff that set photography aside as a separate art form in it's own right did people start to acknowledge photography properly. Even very early pioneers like Cameron were only really replicating stuff seen in Carravagio or Corregio paintings. It took photography a good 70 years to find it's feet and start to be recognised as art.
Prior to that "art" photography was nothing more than a heavily criticised facsimile of tired pictorial painting. Any "arty farty" types, as you put it, during the period of the "inception" of modern art would have decried photography as not being art at all. In that respect, photography had more in common with modern art than established, more formal art of the time.
