I can't help but agree with every word Ian has said, however much it pains me to...

I've got a number of not necessarily related thoughts on Mr Parr and his comments:

1. I rather agree with him that many amateurs do indeed attempt to copy styles and photos, but it's far too sweeping a generalisation to assume that that is the motivation behind us all. I think we've kicked to death the "Buchaille Etive Mor" issue previously, but suffice it to say that I think on here we've a decreasing number of Cornish emulators, common though they may still be elsewhere, and beyond that it's not immediately obvious whose style anybody attempts to emulate.
Is he perhaps upset that AP readers don't try to copy his style?

2. Is it not exceptionally ironic that not only is his style based on someone else's, but that he's "a huge influence in the art colleges" - in short, people are trying to recreate his photos and his photographic style?

3. I think he's got a decent eye for a subject, but I actually think his execution is pretty awful and extremely clumsy. Set aside his lighting and colour style for a moment, it's his composition that I think is often pretty poor, as highlighted by several of the shots in the mag - wrong choice of lens to get a suitable perspective, wrong framing and so on IMVHO. Then there's the slavish adherence to his style, regardless of whether it suits the subject or not. Yes, it goes down well with the art establishment, and plenty of people queue up to buy it - but frankly I don't care if I'm the little boy pointing out that this particular emperor is stark naked, and up until his comments, I had always assumed that he didn't care what I (or any of us) thought either, but that he was content to laugh all the way to the bank. Now I'm not so sure - it appears to me that he actually craves our adulation. Sorry, Martin.

4. I've browsed through the last two issues of AP in light of his comments, and also had another look at the monthly competition on here - and with the exception of the pic of Bamburgh Castle in this week's mag, they largely refute his comments IMHO. Indeed even that attempts to be a slightly different treatment, and is rather nicely complimented by a similar treatment of Torness Power Station by the same photographer, the two images together saying considerably more about art than Parr's pic of a Tenerife tourist menu...
OK, I know that shot is a statement on the habits and requirements of the British tourist on holiday, but for me, it's artistically bankrupt - no more than a pure record shot if taken by anyone other than The Artist, and it only aquires meaning with a hint of written explanation - and as Kyle Cassidy says, if a photo needs explanation, it's not good enough. Personally, I rate Kyle's photography much more highly than Parr's in the street world - for that matter, ditto Alan W's - hugely superior execution, and less tiresomely predictable in style...

5. I don't think Parr is a great photographer. I don't even think he's all that good. I DO think he's an important photographer, and despite all my comments, I wish him well - he gives us something to talk about, and it's always good to see any photographer making money out of something other than the misery of others.