Anyone up for another pic to discuss?

[dhbebb]

<p><em>Perhaps you're confusing what the critics put into his mouth/mind with what he himself said (and what his work shows)?</em><br /> Perhaps indeed - although I feel the word "disconnect" is more apt and would say that the confusion/disconnect exists not between the critics' words and those of Parr himself but rather between Parr's words and his pictures.<br /> In trying to research this subject further, I of course noted the quotes which Fred G. found and used in his introduction to discussion #8. Above and beyond this, I found the following:<br /> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/3615454/Ordinary-lives-extraordinary-photographs.html<br /> with these words:<br /> " … the picture editor, for example, who described him as “a gratuitously cruel social critic who has made large amounts of money by sneering at the foibles and pretensions of other people“. Or the veteran humanistic French photographer Henri Cartier-Bresson, who took great exception to the attitude expressed in Parr’s pictures. Parr, he complained, seemed to come from a different planet. Parr replied, admitting that their photographic visions “differed“ – but added, “Why shoot the messenger?“<br /> Against this, Parr contends:<br /> "‘I’m much more romantic and nostalgic than people give me credit for,“ says the photographer Martin Parr. “People like to assume I’m cynical and sneering. In fact, I’m an absolute softy. Many things I criticise in modern life because I’d almost prefer to have everything as it was in 1950. I shouldn’t be telling you that because I’m giving the game away.“<br /> I think that at this point it becomes clear that Parr is not averse to obfuscation, smoke and mirrors. Tellingly, on his own website:<br /> http://www.martinparr.com/introduction/<br /> he does not offer a mission statement in his own words but instead reproduces the same short introduction by Thomas Weski which appears on the Magnum site. Since Parr chose this text, this suggests that he broadly agrees with the views expressed in it, but of course we cannot assume this automatically.<br /> I think this brings me to the conclusion that I was looking for. I have been a a die-hard Cartier-Bresson fan for over 50 years - although I fully acknowledge that we live in different times, which may demand a new documentary photography approach, Parr's attitude simply sticks in my throat. When I hear somebody talking about documenting the quirks and foibles of the British, the name that immediately comes to mind is Tony Ray-Jones, whose work was characterised by insight but above all affection for his subject matter. I think it's time for me simply to say that, as far as I am concerned, Parr's work is cold and superficial, and I just don't like it. Furthermore, his photographic technique seems poor and consists fundamentally of hitting everything with the ugly stick.<br /> Thanks to everyone for their contributions, which I have enjoyed reading. I feel I have little or nothing left to say on the subject, so will withdraw from this thread unless anyone addresses a question directly to me, in which case I will be happy to reply. Best regards to all!</p><div></div>

[GerrySiegel]

True Fred, bikini clad women are everywhere and have eye candy appeal. I like eye candy.. Not Zurich sausages today, thanks... John posts 4000 plus images in his gallery. Including these here. He gets around.

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=1071899

[Robin Smith]

<p>I actually like the photo. To me I find it both a charming depiction of childhood, and an ironic take on the desire to photograph everything, even if in this case they are toy cameras. The technical quality of the pic is not high, but again perhaps this makes it resonate as snapshot rather a posed professional quality shot. Unfortunately my feelings about it are influenced by the fact that I know it was taken by the famous Martin Parr, so I know it will have more meaning than a simple snapshot by my mother, so I can happily interpret it the way I have. Without this knowledge, would I have thought the same? I will never really know. Therein lies a conundrum.</p>

[donald_miller5]

<p>For the record in the previous thread on Parr I never said that I did not like his work, I just did not think he achieved his self stated aim. Instead I saw it as testimony to the British to accept what life deals them and make the most of it. I saw the dog as a symbol of man to exist with nature since the dog (not tame it and picture it as a wolf) was actually was the result of an evolutionary symbiotic relationship from two species that were not what I would say coexisted in a benign manner.<br>

I actually liked Parr's work. It is light, colorful and entertaining. Many street photographers and photojournalist see themselves as social critics (that is great and we need that) but having some cheerleaders is a good thing sometimes it is nice just to be entertained and have fun.</p>

 

[inoneeye]

<p>I also like the photo and the series it is from. For all its blatancy and over the top snapshot characteristics ... what comes to my mind is the nuance I see that sets it apart from other snaps. “In photography there is a reality so subtle that it becomes more real than reality.” – Alfred Stieglitz</p>

[GerrySiegel]

Got to say that Parr's self portrait series is truly funny. On his web site. An original Where's Waldo. I like Parr's sense of self mocking humor/ humour. Made me laugh. Like Woody Allen, he must be an acquired taste.

[Matthew Currie]

<p>I missed the earlier link to a Friedlander picture by Phil S. Maybe it's just me, but it strikes me on looking at that one that along with the humorous outlook and the apparent spontaneity, I see a good bit of photographic care and craft that is less easy to see in Parr's work. Of course one sample does not a conclusion make, but I like that one.</p>

<p> </p>