Martin Parr

FX Meister

He's coming to dublin in a couple of weeks. Anyone who doesn't know this magnum photographer should check him out.
www.martinparr.com
http://www.ranelagharts.org/2008_all.php

Martin Parr, Magnum photographer, a very special visitor to the festival this year, will discuss his long career as one of the most original and innovative photographers of our time. From the early days of taking black and white photographs of Ireland – notably A Fair Day (1984), Bad Weather (1982 ) and the groundbreaking The Last Resort (1986) – up to his most recent work exploring globalisation and tourism, Martin’s unique perspective on the follies and vanities of our time has consistently enlightened, amused and even alarmed. A photograph by Martin Parr is instantly recognisable – in a world where we are bombarded by the visual media, his images always engage and can never be ignored.

leinsterman

Excellent ... he is one of my favorites ...

Borderfox

I have to say I went off him big time after that show on Channell 4. Thanks for letting us know though..

DadaKopf

This is soooo exciiiiting...!

MistressPandora

Oh wow!
*puts post-it notes everywhere: DO NOT FORGET!*

thebaz

thanks FX , definitley going , hopefully pick something up from a master !

PaulieC

Borderfox wrote: »

I have to say I went off him big time after that show on Channell 4. Thanks for letting us know though..

Looking at his recent gallery on his website (documenting the lives of the ostentaciouly wealthy...yawn), I'd have to say that there is a serious case of the emporer's new clothes syndrome going on...

shepthedog

I wouldnt be a massive fan of his but would still like to attend the talk, after all, A magnum photographer doesnt give talks here everyday.... He is referred to as Martin Below-Parr by some of his fellow pros apparently..

leinsterman

cambo_gueno wrote: »

Looking at his recent gallery on his website (documenting the lives of the ostentaciouly wealthy...yawn), I'd have to say that there is a serious case of the emporer's new clothes syndrome going on...

We all have our off days ... I'm not sure this is reason to not attend his lecture, if this is what you are trying to suggest ... in any case if you are not a fan you don't have to go to the lecture ...

Personally, I love his work, he has a skill of making ordinary into extraordinary while not overly exploiting the subject in the process ... that is rare ... nevertheless there are a good few images of his that don't appeal to me at all ...

ThOnda

Where and when? Do I have to register?

Burago

Date/Time: Sunday, 28 September, 2pm
Venue: Ranelagh Multidenominational School
Tickets: €10

----

Festival Box Office: Front snug of Smyth’s Pub

Opens: Friday 12th September - Saturday 27th September

Mondays to Fridays: 1 – 2pm and 5 – 7.30pm / Saturdays & Sundays: 1 – 6pm

Apparently tickets will be available online soon.

The Chessplayer

shepthedog wrote: »

He is referred to as Martin Below-Parr by some of his fellow pros apparently..

That is purely in relation to his golfing. The magnum crowd have a few rounds every summer, and Martin, by all accounts, is not very good at the game -this despite the many hours put in at the driving range leading up to these Magnum Invitationals.

Covey

The Chessplayer wrote: »

That is purely in relation to his golfing. The magnum crowd have a few rounds every summer, and Martin, by all accounts, is not very good at the game -this despite the many hours put in at the driving range leading up to these Magnum Invitationals.

Below par is goooood

DadaKopf

cambo_gueno wrote:

Looking at his recent gallery on his website (documenting the lives of the ostentaciouly wealthy...yawn), I'd have to say that there is a serious case of the emporer's new clothes syndrome going on...

Why do you think that?

Personally, I love his work, he has a skill of making ordinary into extraordinary while not overly exploiting the subject in the process ... that is rare ... nevertheless there are a good few images of his that don't appeal to me at all ...

I read a good quote by him on photography and exploitation of the human subject, e.g. his photos of tourists. Basically, he acknowledges there's a degree of exploitation in all photojournalism, a mix of opportunism and the necessary misrepresentation and misinterpretation that comes with it. He said it's really about working out an ethos and practice you can be happy enough with, and slowly getting used to the exploitation it involves.

PaulieC

DadaKopf wrote: »

Why do you think that?

I had a look through his recent gallery and I don't think it's very good. Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't like it. I'm not going to say 'OMG it's soooo brilliant' just because he's a mamber of Magnum.

I didn't look at the rest of his stuff so I can't really comment on that..

The Chessplayer

Covey wrote: »

Below par is goooood

Oh yeah, oops :rolleyes:

DadaKopf

cambo_gueno wrote: »

I had a look through his recent gallery and I don't think it's very good. Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't like it. I'm not going to say 'OMG it's soooo brilliant' just because he's a mamber of Magnum.

I didn't look at the rest of his stuff so I can't really comment on that..

But what is it you don't like? Why don't you like his stuff?

ThOnda

In fairness, that phat belly with cocktail stain isn't something spectacular. I am not impressed by the latest pictures in his gallery as well. However I'll try to find some other works to find out if his photographs and his style attract me.

FX Meister

Check out some of his books in town. Common Sense is amazing.

The Chessplayer

ThOnda wrote: »

In fairness, that phat belly with cocktail stain isn't something spectacular. I am not impressed by the latest pictures in his gallery as well. However I'll try to find some other works to find out if his photographs and his style attract me.

To say something isn't spectacular is an odd criticism. I quite like it - spectacularly vulgar I would say!

What is it about Martin Parr's work that prompts such smugness and fury from the philistines? Is it the sense that they could have taken these pictures themselves? I can imagine these critics slowing thumbing through his books in search of the unspectacular.

Dragan

MistressPandora wrote: »

Oh wow!
*puts post-it notes everywhere: DO NOT FORGET!*

Yeah, we have to head along to this one i think!

PaulieC

The Chessplayer wrote: »

To say something isn't spectacular is an odd criticism. I quite like it - spectacularly vulgar I would say!

What is it about Martin Parr's work that prompts such smugness and fury from the philistines? Is it the sense that they could have taken these pictures themselves? I can imagine these critics slowing thumbing through his books in search of the unspectacular.

well I'm not being smug or furious here. The only reaction that this set of photos is apathy. World-renowned Mugnum photographer can take some snaps of rich people doing rich things. So what...I get the impression here that I'm supposed to fawn over anything that he does just because of who he is. It doesn't say 'innovative imagery' or 'oblique approach to social commentary' to me.

I hope that answers DadKopf's question - I don't like it or dislike it, I'm just not moved by it at all...

Dragan

The Chessplayer wrote: »

What is it about Martin Parr's work that prompts such smugness and fury from the philistines?

I normally look at the use of the term "philistines" as being a put down, no matter how gentle.

Just because someone does not appreciate the work of a particular person that you might find appealing does not make them "uncultured".

Please watch your use of words when talking to other members of the forum.

Dragan
- Moderator

DadaKopf

cambo_gueno wrote: »

well I'm not being smug or furious here. The only reaction that this set of photos is apathy. World-renowned Mugnum photographer can take some snaps of rich people doing rich things. So what...I get the impression here that I'm supposed to fawn over anything that he does just because of who he is. It doesn't say 'innovative imagery' or 'oblique approach to social commentary' to me.

I hope that answers DadKopf's question - I don't like it or dislike it, I'm just not moved by it at all...

A friend of mine called a quick glance of his photos 'facile juxtapositions of things'. Not his cup of tea at all, but he couldn't tell me why he thought that - and he's a fairly insightful guy.

To be honest, when I first came across Parr, I never knew he was so well known and well-regarded. I just knew that, in his compositions, treatment of colour, subject matter, he was saying something interesting in a way I'd never seen before. It was years later I realised how much his idiosyncratic style had influenced others; only in the last couple of years I found out he was a member of Magnum, which had absolutely no impact on my enjoyment of his photographs. I therefore find your tone fairly judgemental.

I realise people's likes and dislikes in photography is a very personal thing. Most don't know why they have certain likes and dislikes. But people don't 'read' photos enough here. They don't bother with understanding the photographer's motives, ideas, what they're trying to communicate. The traditions they're working, or trying to transform or break out of. The feelings in the viewer they're trying to evoke.

In Parr's case, many find his work crass, ugly, facile. But others see a photographer giving prominence to the crass, ugly, facile, boring, repulsive, endearing, amusing, hilarious aspects of British culture and popular culture in general. Many don't like his work because they find it embarrassing. His photos of Ireland in the 1970s, and when he returned in the 1990s, document change and he gives us a way to look at our country differently, as he did in Britain and elsewhere. He is a photojournalist, a documentarist, an anthropologist, a historian, an archivist.

You can talk about his use of medium-format camera, lenses, ring-flashes, high-saturation processing and printing techniques, compositional devices, photographic narrative, etc. In the end, it adds up to the work of a photographer who has developed his unique voice in the vast, competitive world of photography.

It's possible to 'read' this in his photographs, acknowledge it, even appreciate it, and still not like them. But I seriously question people's real interest in photography when they blanket everything with an idiotic judgement like: 'mneh', or 'I love it!' or 'it doesn't do it for me'.

Who or what, in your book, does it for you?

PaulieC

DadaKopf wrote: »

It was years later I realised how much his idiosyncratic style had influenced others; only in the last couple of years I found out he was a member of Magnum, which had absolutely no impact on my enjoyment of his photographs. I therefore find your tone fairly judgemental.

DadaKopf wrote: »

It's possible to 'read' this in his photographs, acknowledge it, even appreciate it, and still not like them. But I seriously question people's real interest in photography when they blanket everything with an idiotic judgement like: 'mneh', or 'I love it!' or 'it doesn't do it for me'.
Who or what, in your book, does it for you?

calm down. you seem to be getting a bit carried away with yourself here. I stated an opinion here that you seem to have taken as a personal insult. I said that I didn't like Martin Parr's work. This does not mean that I think anyone who does is a tosser. Each to their own mate.

Also, you seem to be getting a bit judgemental yourself there...

DadaKopf

cambo_gueno wrote: »

calm down. you seem to be getting a bit carried away with yourself here. I stated an opinion here that you seem to have taken as a personal insult. I said that I didn't like Martin Parr's work. This does not mean that I think anyone who does is a tosser. Each to their own mate.

Also, you seem to be getting a bit judgemental yourself there...

It's a photography forum, it'd be nice to get some actual discussion and exchanges of opinion among people here. All I really said was I get frustrated with people here casting judgements without ever giving reasons. If we're all photography enthusiasts here (instead of camera enthusiasts), surely the discussion could move up a few notches.

I mean, after politely asking if you could share more of your views, you just repeated yourself.

Hey, don't get me wrong. I don't care. I'd just wonder what this forum is for at all if everyone continues to do this.

PaulieC

DadaKopf wrote: »

It's a photography forum, it'd be nice to get some actual discussion and exchanges of opinion among people here. All I really said was I get frustrated with people here casting judgements without ever giving reasons. If we're all photography enthusiasts here (instead of camera enthusiasts), surely the discussion could move up a few notches.

I mean, after politely asking if you could share more of your views, you just repeated yourself.

Hey, don't get me wrong. I don't care. I'd just wonder what this forum is for at all if everyone continues to do this.

I think I made my opinion quite clear in my first response in this thread. I mentioned the emporer's new clothes syndrome. I think the 'Luxury' set on his webiste is basically a set of snapshots of people who may or may not be wealthy. I don't see them being ostentacious. The photos don't speak to me of people who are consciously trying to attract attention to themselves and their wealth. If one is trying to convey a subject through photographs then it should be at least somewhat obvious.

Technically, they are badly lit and composed (I understand this this is more than likely because they are 'photojournalistic' so no need to explain that to me).

ThOnda

What a discussion! :-)

And now for some selfish private opinion. For the first, photography is visual. And as I have said before, I went through the latest set of pictures he has on his site and from visual point of view or photography point of view - I wasn't neither attracted nor captivated by the pictures. And because of that, I said that I will have to check other of his work.

Everybody is able to produce good pictures. However the problem of professional photographers is that they have limited time to finish their tasks. And the more you work, especially under pressure, the harder it is to not only maintain quality of your pictures, but to get better. And it is too easy to slip to some "style". And that is what happened with the set I saw. Pictures does not look bad, however they look like pictures produced in some style.

/Edit: And I am selfish enough to say that some pictures are not good photographs although they carry "big photographer's" name. Every single picture stands for itself, speaks for itself and has it's own quality/value. If the picture needs explanation, or if it has to be part of some set, we cannot talk about a photograph, but about the whole project./Edit.

Maybe, they would have better effect on me in the whole set. Maybe, they were produced just to evoke the feelings I have from them. However I cannot decide if I like some photographer's work only by few pictures.

I am sorry if I had caused somebody's confusion or blood pressure rise, however photography, it's "reading" and understanding is based on personal visual and social experience.

The Chessplayer

DadaKopf wrote: »

It's a photography forum, it'd be nice to get some actual discussion and exchanges of opinion among people here. All I really said was I get frustrated with people here casting judgements without ever giving reasons. If we're all photography enthusiasts here (instead of camera enthusiasts), surely the discussion could move up a few notches.

I mean, after politely asking if you could share more of your views, you just repeated yourself.

Hey, don't get me wrong. I don't care. I'd just wonder what this forum is for at all if everyone continues to do this.

I agree. It's the boorish buffoonery of the camera-club set. The bar-stool mentality of I don't know anything about such-and-such but I know what I like.

To accuse Parr of trying to make us fawn over his work "because of who he is" is wildly bizarre. I had a good old chuckle to myself at the whole 'oblique social commentary' line.

Covey

The Chessplayer wrote: »

I agree. It's the boorish buffoonery of the camera-club set. The bar-stool mentality of I don't know anything about such-and-such but I know what I like.

To accuse Parr of trying to make us fawn over his work "because of who he is" is wildly bizarre. I had a good old chuckle to myself at the whole 'oblique social commentary' line.

I don't know anything about such-and-such but I know what I like.

To be honest thats what it's all about really. Sometimes we get too up our own a***es and try to get the meaning of life out of everything.

Photography isn't and never was the preserve of those "in the know" or somehow more experienced or knowledgeable than others. "What I Like" is important.

Back to Martin Parr. I've been a fan for years, but I'll qualify that by saying an occassional fan. Some of the stuff has been fantastic and some mightily unimpressive. I think this body of work falls in between but imo more towards the unimpressive end.

I get the impression that Martin is pandering to his paymasters here, with the result that a lot of people are rather underwhelmed and I think the difference to some of his earlier work, obviously done for Martin Parr as distinct for Esquire or whoever, is stark to see.

Calina

I think, ultimately, when it comes down to parting with hard cash, "I don't know much about XYZ but I know what I like" is a good criteria to start with. Martin Parr has a book out at the moment.

One of the things that has recently struck me was how important context would be to photographs. If you look at the Luxury set as is playing out on Martin Parr's website, what strikes me is the lack of context. To me, they are less a piece of work on their own, and more a tool to illustrate some textual output. In other words, unlike a lot of other pieces of work, they don't stand alone. Also, to be honest - and sad about it too - his website design detracts greatly from his photographs. They might look a lot better without the 1970s style wallpaper.

With respect to elitism, personally i see it like this. Over in the corner of my room is a stack of photography books. Two of them are by Philippe Plisson, my God as far as photography is concerned. I buy them only because from the time I was 21 years old, he has been my favourite photographer because I like the world he depicts. And I buy his books from time to time because I haven't got wall space enough to hang all the photos of his that I like.

You could go and sit and dissect his style all you want. At the end of the day, however...the final question for me is "do I like looking at this yes/no" and that is it.

shepthedog

Ah quality, yet again, people on boards cant discuss a subject without resorting to a petty squabble...

Why so much personal attacks here recently? Mods either sort this or the whole forum is going to descent into crap... People are being discouraged from posting... And i dont mean just handing out red cards.. encourage people to post helpful messages and bring this back towards a proper photography forum.

PaulieC

shepthedog wrote: »

Ah quality, yet again, people on boards cant discuss a subject without resorting to a petty squabble...

Why so much personal attacks here recently? Mods either sort this or the whole forum is going to descent into crap... People are being discouraged from posting... And i dont mean just handing out red cards.. encourage people to post helpful messages and bring this back towards a proper photography forum.

ah come on, we are having a debate. Please let's not get this board into such a state that people cannot even disagree with each other for fear of being banned or having threads locked. That will surely make this board a less interesting place and then people wouldn't be discouraged from posting, they just wouldn't bother...

Fair enough, one poster did get a bit fruity with his(her) replies, but then again, I'm not sure if they actually understood the nature of the debate, but rather just wanted to troll a bit.

Please don't moderate us to death...

Calina

Hmmm.

I am inclined to wonder what a proper photography forum is. I've been through a few now.

The topic is Martin Parr and his photographs and trip to Ireland. It might be worth getting back on it.

Dragan

cambo_gueno wrote: »

Please don't moderate us to death...

All is good, i didn't see anything in here i would have questioned other than the word "philistines".

FX Meister

if you dont like his work then why not attend his lecture to see what he has to say. It could change your mind

The Chessplayer

Calina wrote: »

I think, ultimately, when it comes down to parting with hard cash, "I don't know much about XYZ but I know what I like" is a good criteria to start with.

The idea of this forum is to generate engaging discourse. No point in just posting to say "I don't like this", without articulating an informed opinion.

Calina wrote: »

With respect to elitism

Calina wrote: »

You could go and sit and dissect his style all you want. At the end of the day, however...the final question for me is "do I like looking at this yes/no" and that is it.

I would have thought the whole point of the forum is to discuss/analyse etc.

Perhaps there should be 2 forums for photography: one for the camera-club enthusiasts and one for [what these camera-club types would evidently call] elitists or arty-farties.

It's amazing that merely liking Martin Parr is enough to be blasted as an elitist or an arty-farty.

Dragan

The Chessplayer wrote: »

It's amazing that merely liking Martin Parr is enough to be blasted as an elitist or an arty-farty.

Odd, as from your first post i got the impression that not likeing him marked someone as the camera-club set?

Although i am still unsure as to what that means.

As it is an open forum, if someone wants to come along and say they don't like something, then fair enough. Once that is done in the proper manner and not "Parr is ****", then i have no issue with it.

Personally, his new set on the site I really don't see the attraction of. I don't see rich people being rich, i see people being people.

Although perhaps the point is lost on me.

Covey

I would have thought the whole point of the forum is to discuss/analyse etc.

It's a part of the Forum but certainly not the whole point. There are people here of various standards and various levels of interest.

Perhaps there should be 2 forums for photography: one for the camera-club enthusiasts and one for [what these camera-club types would evidently call] elitists or arty-farties.

Absolutely not. I don't know where you're getting your "Camera club enthusiasts" from, but your certainly coming over as elitist and a tad arrogant.



It's amazing that merely liking Martin Parr is enough to be blasted as an elitist or an arty-farty.

Liking Martin Parr is grand, I like him myself as posted in a prior posting. Trying to put down those who don't, even if they don't express why or even know why is a little arrogant though.

I personally don't like so called "Modern Art" ,the type where paint is thrown at a canvas. I don't know why I don't like it and don't really care either. Should I have to write a thesis on it to have opinion respected?

The idea of this forum is to generate engaging discourse.

Couldn't agree more, but with respect for everyone. Putting labels on people and putting down their opinions, won't encourage such discource and will seriously put people who are starting off from contributing.

T.

And sorry I've not to grips with the multi-quote thing.

leinsterman

... well not to throw fuel on the fire ... but

but IMHO -

The original poster was informing everyone that he was coming to town in case there was an interest...

Given the purpose of the thread - I do not think it appropriate to answer such a post with a blanket statement criticising his latest work ... especially such a bland one as "what's the big deal" ... that to me is being elite and a little bit disrespectful of the OP.

A critical debate by its nature needs to call on specifics giving examples and rationale behind why the opinion is, "as it is" (for good or bad) ... not a series of sweeping statements.

My question for everyone is this - Is it appropriate to have a critical debate in someone else's thread which is intended to inform people of an event ?

Calina

The Chessplayer wrote: »

The idea of this forum is to generate engaging discourse. No point in just posting to say "I don't like this", without articulating an informed opinion.

I would have thought the whole point of the forum is to discuss/analyse etc.

Perhaps there should be 2 forums for photography: one for the camera-club enthusiasts and one for [what these camera-club types would evidently call] elitists or arty-farties.

It's amazing that merely liking Martin Parr is enough to be blasted as an elitist or an arty-farty.

This is a gentle reminder: there is a wide range of abilities and tastes amongst the posters to this board. By suggesting we split the forum in two, I get the impression you want one board for people who agree with you and people who do not agree with you. This is not, unfortunately, going to happen. You will have to learn that some people you will agree with and some you will not. This is the nature of discussion as I understand it and it is what you get here. You claim to find it desirable.

Liking Martin Parr is not enough to be blasted as elitist and/or arty-farty. Disparaging those who do not is, however more than adequate and it is also adequate to acquire bans, infractions and warnings.

Please bear this in mind when framing your response to other posters.

I'm also going to remind you - as Dragan did yesterday - that there are ways and means of making points without being mildly abusive of other people. I would have expected that following yesterday this thread would not involve too much in the way of my attention of that of Dragan.

The subject in hand I would remind all posters is Martin Parr, his work and an opportunity to engage with him in Dublin real soon.

Depending on how this thread evolves I am considering splitting it and bumping some of it off to events and leaving the rest of it open for debate.

DadaKopf

leinsterman wrote: »

... well not to throw fuel on the fire ... but

but IMHO -

The original poster was informing everyone that he was coming to town in case there was an interest...

Given the purpose of the thread - I do not think it appropriate to answer such a post with a blanket statement criticising his latest work ... especially such a bland one as "what's the big deal" ... that to me is being elite and a little bit disrespectful of the OP.

A critical debate by its nature needs to call on specifics giving examples and rationale behind why the opinion is, "as it is" (for good or bad) ... not a series of sweeping statements.

My question for everyone is this - Is it appropriate to have a critical debate in someone else's thread which is intended to inform people of an event ?

That's just the way threads go. How many people have started threads trying to get some deeper discussion going and they die a death. The reality is people need a 'hook' to get a good argument going, and that just can't be predicted. As much as people try, they can't be controlled. It's just people.

I don't know why people get so defensive when they're challenged a little. Sometimes I think it's a measure of people's passion for photography. But most of the time I think it's a case of *fingers in ears* "Lalalalala, I'm not listening, weeoooweeoooweeoooweeooo!!!".

Anyway, I'd like to forget all this. I mean, if someone wants to challenge me on some of my statements about Parr, I'd be happy to discuss.

It *is* ironic linking Parr to elitism considering his whole photographic approach is quite democratic. He developed his everyday snapshot style to reflect the kinds of photos people take with their cameras every day. Your average, 'vernacular' photographs, billions of them everywhere, *do* tell us things about ourselves and our world. So he's turning his eye towards this reality in his own way. Anywho...

As someone earlier said, I do think there's a visible difference between the photos Par did "for himself" and his latter photos done for an assignment. His trademark 'snapshot photography' style is still there, but the subject matter and unique perspective that comes with his narrative is absent. I don't see this as a failure on his part as much as something which comes with the style he's developed. Contrast that, for example, with the approach of Cartier-Bresson. His photographs function completely differently.

leinsterman

DadaKopf wrote: »

That's just the way threads go. How many people have started threads trying to get some deeper discussion going and they die a death. The reality is people need a 'hook' to get a good argument going, and that just can't be predicted. As much as people try, they can't be controlled. It's just people.

good point ... we can't help ourselves sometimes

DadaKopf wrote: »

I mean, if someone wants to challenge me on some of my statements about Parr, I'd be happy to discuss.

It *is* ironic linking Parr to elitism considering his whole photographic approach is quite democratic. He developed his everyday snapshot style to reflect the kinds of photos people take with their cameras every day. Your average, 'vernacular' photographs, billions of them everywhere, *do* tell us things about ourselves and our world. So he's turning his eye towards this reality in his own way. Anywho...

As someone earlier said, I do think there's a visible difference between the photos Par did "for himself" and his latter photos done for an assignment. His trademark 'snapshot photography' style is still there, but the subject matter and unique perspective that comes with his narrative is absent. I don't see this as a failure on his part as much as something which comes with the style he's developed. Contrast that, for example, with the approach of Cartier-Bresson. His photographs function completely differently.

This is an example of what I mean by engaging in a critical discussion ...

Maybe there is a pub somewhere in Ranelagh where we can get a gang together to have such a discussion, having seen him present ... we can make it a group outing.

leinsterman

... I should add that more of this kind of discussion would spice up the forum a bit and make it more interesting ...

We focus a lot on gear ... which is fine ... I'm a certified (or is it -able?) gear head and I may no apologies for it ... but there is more to life ...

Dragan

DadaKopf wrote: »

It *is* ironic linking Parr to elitism considering his whole photographic approach is quite democratic. He developed his everyday snapshot style to reflect the kinds of photos people take with their cameras every day. Your average, 'vernacular' photographs, billions of them everywhere, *do* tell us things about ourselves and our world. So he's turning his eye towards this reality in his own way. Anywho...

As someone earlier said, I do think there's a visible difference between the photos Par did "for himself" and his latter photos done for an assignment. His trademark 'snapshot photography' style is still there, but the subject matter and unique perspective that comes with his narrative is absent. I don't see this as a failure on his part as much as something which comes with the style he's developed. Contrast that, for example, with the approach of Cartier-Bresson. His photographs function completely differently.

Okay, so if Parr "developed" a style along the lines of the everyday snapshot, what is it that seperates his work from just that, the everyday snap shots?

Is it the subjects? The message behind them? I don't know enough about Parr to know what he is trying to do if i am honest.

The Chessplayer

Calina wrote: »

By suggesting we split the forum in two, I get the impression you want one board for people who agree with you and people who do not agree with you.

Nonsense! I'm certainly not looking for blanket consensus, just critical analysis rather than "that's sh!te because I don't like it".

Hugh_C

2 (usu. philistine) a person who is hostile or indifferent to culture and the arts, or who has no understanding of them : [as adj. ] a philistine government.

For what it's worth, the material on his website leaves me a bit meh, some of his magnum stuff I like though.

Covey

Dragan wrote: »

Okay, so if Parr "developed" a style along the lines of the everyday snapshot, what is it that seperates his work from just that, the everyday snap shots?

Is it the subjects? The message behind them? I don't know enough about Parr to know what he is trying to do if i am honest.

Good question.

Well some of them are not snapshots, but only the style/presentation element is.

Then there some that obviously are and what seperates them from the everyday snap shots?. Well maybe nothing. I doubt a lot of these would have attained any critical acclaim, were they not attached to a known name.

Then again whats wrong with snapshots ( slightly different argument maybe). The snapshots of today often become the icons of the future, be it on a personal level or otherwise.

There's a fabulous book out at the moment from Dutch photographer Geert van Kesteren, called Bagdad Calling, where he uses snapshots, many taken on mobiles, to depict life in Iraq which is inaccessible to photojournalists.

DadaKopf

Dragan wrote:

Okay, so if Parr "developed" a style along the lines of the everyday snapshot, what is it that seperates his work from just that, the everyday snap shots?

Yeah, real good question. One thing I think about is where a question like this is coming from. For many people, it stems from a worry that 'snapshot' photography as a legitimate style undermines 'real' photography, whatever that is. This opposition between 'amateur' and 'professional/art' photography is only in the mind, and I wonder if the opposition is justified at all. Parr, I think, teeters on the brink, which is why he's so brilliant and so infuriating. There's a tension there that's quite interesting. I mean, are his photographs cliché, or parody, or honest-to-goodness photojournalism? He's by no means unique in playing around the way he does, though. Van Kesteren is a really good case in point. Also, I don't think Parr tries to make 'iconic' images in the same way someone like Eugene Smith did - as Jackson Pollock said, each age finds its own style, and that style is reflective of the world of the time.

Well some of them are not snapshots, but only the style/presentation element is.

Then there some that obviously are and what seperates them from the everyday snap shots?. Well maybe nothing. I doubt a lot of these would have attained any critical acclaim, were they not attached to a known name.

His studio shots are truly bizarre. Such as his self-portraits. But they're sort of anti-iconic.

FX Meister

Hugh_C wrote: »

For what it's worth, the material on his website leaves me a bit meh, some of his magnum stuff I like though.

Exactly, so it seems a bit retarded to blow him off on the basis of his latest work as many here have done.

YeahOK

cambo_gueno wrote: »

Looking at his recent gallery on his website (documenting the lives of the ostentaciouly wealthy...yawn), I'd have to say that there is a serious case of the emporer's new clothes syndrome going on...

I'd have to agree. His recent work as look like nothing more than a few P&S shots. I'm a bit let down. I thought I was in for a rare treat with all the hoopla about him in this post.:rolleyes:

Just goes to show, there's hope for us yet. Shoot any old crap, call it art and your away with the mixer folks!:)