blazeicehockey
Brand New In Box
The main counter argument here seems to be that Parr does not portray the subject matter in a good light, and with respect. The either/or statement showed the argument in the other extreme...and how silly this is....and seems to have had the right reaction
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Perhaps you should consider exchanging that broad brush for a set of finer ones. They might allow you to paint with a bit more nuance.
Last edited by a moderator:
ebino
Well-known
I'm yet to be convinced, in a patient and detailed manner by any Parr fan as to what makes his work any better than my grandma's quirky holiday snaps.
I'd love to negate all this negative energy against Parr and his pictures if someone were to enlighten me.
Last edited by a moderator:
This thread is getting close to be labeled "just venting" and going off-topic. It does not seem that anyone is discussing why Martin Parr took these pictures, but simply labels it as "exploitation" for personal gain.
That is "Just Venting", and will be moved off the front page if a discussion fitting to the Philosophy forum does not prevail.
kevin m
Veteran
.... largely an assumption on your part?
blazeicehockey
Brand New In Box
.... largely an assumption on your part?
i can quote from the posts if you want me to?
kevin m
Veteran
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
It's no more the responsibility of a Parr fan to convince you that Parr's work has merit than it is your responsibility to convince a Parr fan that it does not.
If you are arguing in good faith, the default position is to assume that your opponent might have good reasons for having his or her opinions.
Last edited by a moderator:
Jamie123
Veteran
I've yet to be conviced about a lot of photographers whose work is generally held in high esteem on internet forums.
I think the point of Parr's work is exactly that it looks like your grandma's quirky holiday snaps. He adapts the aesthetic of vernacular photography but, unlike your grandma, Parr turns this into a series of images that work as a whole.
ebino
Well-known
Its in complete good faith. I'm not really interested in e-ego clashes.
i have tried to understand parr, and like his work... but it was all in vain.
had it been alex webb and if someone where to say they dislike Alex Webb's work, i could write them a 20 page reasons as to why they're wrong. but i have yet to read a single 10 sentence paragraph as to what makes Parr's work great.
Last edited by a moderator:
I have 15 Nikon RF's.
Does that make me as bad as Martin Parr?
More venting, less Philosophy in this thread. Does not meet minimum criteria.
Does that make me as bad as Martin Parr?
More venting, less Philosophy in this thread. Does not meet minimum criteria.
Jamie123
Veteran
I have Alex Webb's ''Crossings'' and find it underwhelming to say the least. I doubt your 20 pages would do much to change my mind for the better. But why even try? It's ultimately just a matter of taste. I don't think my disinterest for Webb's work is a result of a lack of understanding. I just don't particularly care for that kind of work.
kevin m
Veteran
I've found the opposite to be true, that taste matters not much at all. I've found that work that matters calls me back despite the objections of my own taste, makes me reconsider, and I end up altering my preconceived tastes I walked in with.
In Parr's case, there's been nothing to call me back even after repeated viewings. I find him facile, obvious and repetitive. I don't object to his style, I just don't find any depth or nuance to his work that draws me back.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.