Touch unfair I feel. No it doesn't have to be perfect, or deliberately not perfect. Or anything.I know.. quite depressing. Why does everything have to be pretty, and loaded with technical excellence.
Touch unfair I feel.
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)Tastes differ, I just find this guys work plain and un-interesting for the most
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.
David,
A fair point, but I'm not so sure people differentiate between the different types of photographer though.
So his he an artist that just happens to use a camera?
of who, the public or photographers?
You mean considering whether he can fool you all into thinking its 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.
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
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/
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.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.
But it being alternative, obscure and Marmite-esque doesn't actually make it good either.Seriously though... not liking something doesn't make it crap.
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.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.
rjbell said:Are you part of Magnum?
Cagey75 said: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.
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.
Nothings at barry island anymore.Erm, who's Martin Parr???
Is the train grave yard still at Barry Island?
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.
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.
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?
Is the train grave yard still at Barry Island?
The23rdman said: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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
Enlighten me then, because I feel that I do, it's just not something I would say is amazing, nor terrible.