Discussion in 'Weekly Poll' started by Damien_Demolder, Jan 19, 2008.
Another screen and keyboard up the Swannee!
In lieu of the keeps me sane...sort of... option I went for because I enjoy it. Martin Parr, wasn't he in the Boo Radleys??
I think there's more than a grain of truth in what Martin Parr says.
Me? I'd describe myself as much a flaneur as a photographer, if the camera had never been invented I'd still be out strolling, for me its a physical and mental workout (or meditation).
As for influences, I'd be lying if I said that all the images I'd seen had no bearing on the photographs I'd taken over the years, amongst them I can see nods in the direction of Atget, Walker Evans, Robert Frank, Garry Winogrand and even Martin Marr . . . anyone with the same influences or knowledge as me would have little difficulty in spotting them
I think Martin Parr is a bit up his own a**e for making a comment like that!
Many amateurs including readers of AP far out weigh any pro's work.
Anyhow to the q, I for the most part take pictures because I love capturing what I see. A lot of my flower shots have been compared to Maplethorpe, but if you are totally familiar with Maplethorpe they are nothing like. I also only came across Maplethorpe after I was compared to him and it was recommended that I take a look at his photographs. I'm sure there are subconscious influences, for me it's not any one other photographer but more about trends, I seem to get on those then get miffed if others do too
The last time I got hooked on copying a style I bought a spot meter and tried to implement the Zone system.
Soon realised I was just 'pony and trap' and almost gave up photography for fifteen years.
Every time I take a sharp and well exposed image that is exceptionally boring I'm copying Martin Parr
But then again he must have seen a picture of a jumping spider leaping through the air and about sink it's fangs into some prey...I've not! Can't say I've gone looking for one either but I guess it would be nice to see it was "doable" and I'd even settle for a pic of a jumping spider jumping with no prey. I've not nailed either shot Yet
I've always classed myself among the ranks of those who really didn't like Martin Parr's work, but curiously enough after reading that article at last I feel I understand where his pictures are coming from. I still can't stand the ring-flash lighting look that he goes for, but I do see the point of his choice of subject matter now. Maybe it's because I'd only ever seen the odd image of his in isolation, rather than having systematically read through one of his books. But anyway, finally it all becomes clear.
When I posted earlier today I already sympathized with his comments, cited by Damien in this poll, but I hadn't at that time read the article. Now that I have read it they make even more sense to me. Damn it, the guy's growing on me! ;-)
Initially because I enjoyed taking snaps. Then I got the bug which turned into a full blown addiction. Then I was considered 'good' at taking pictures and got paid for doing so. Then it became a slog. Luckily for me, I got over that hump and although I still get paid, I'm now back to taking pictures for the sheer enjoyment of it.
I see photography as keeping me out of a job
hope he knows more about photography than he does about photographers
I take photographs because I want to.
Who on earth is Martin Parr? A Google search reveals little. Apart from a self-lauding website (inevitable) he does have a Wiki entry, that starts "His photographic projects take a critical look at modern society, specifically consumerism, foreign travel and tourism, motoring, family and relationships, and food". Well, there's a vast amount of human endeavour that he doesn't specialise in, then.
Has he materially contributed to human advancement? Probably not.... in which case, who gives a toss what he thinks?
I refuse to read your post until you can fully show your contribution to human advancement.
Well I just take photographs because I enjoy it. When I'm out working, or in car, I'll take a quick shot of something that I like the look of. If I go out with my medium format gear, then I've usually given some thought to where, what and why. I enjoy the process of setting up the camera and capturing the image. If I like what I've captured then great, if someone else doesn't like it ---- well that's their problem.
I don't try to copy Martin Parr or anyone elses style, but I can't help it if images end up looking similar. Just a thought, If I'm older than Martin Parr etc. does that mean that he/they are copying me ??? .
I know this is late but I hope you all had a great Christmas and wish you all the best for the coming year. Had problems here with broadband modem thingy giving up the ghost over Christmas and in getting Virgin Media to come out and fix it. All done now though.
Have to admit I read the article after seeing this and now it's in context I see where he is coming from!
like the majority, first and foremost, because I like taking pictures of
stuff and anything above that, beit compliments, derogatory remarks, money and so on is pure gravy
Oh, I see where he's coming from, but don't entirely agree - and still don't like his photography. I've tried several times, been through quite a few of his books, but it's no good - I really can't equate his banal photography, derivative from a poor snapshot style, with his rather more lucid comments (on this occasion!).
P.S. Having leafed through this week's AP, most of the readers' stuff looks quite original - unlike the Warehouse Express comp in their ads...
I am an archaeologist and photography is one of our primary means of recording what we find. Sorry, dead boring.
I don't know if he's original or not but his style seems to be in vogue at the mo, it'll soon die a death then we'll all be chanting 'who are you' lol
More seriously I quite like his photography to flick through and be amused by in mags but there is nothing I would want to buy except perhaps a book. I admire his outlook.
If his view really is that we are all small minded it really does show him up as a small minded person!
Regarding Mr Parr's comments - I think that all artists are to a certain extent influenced by the work of others. Certainly I admire the work of earlier masters such as Bresson, Adams, Cameron etc; it doesn't mean that I copy their work. I hope that I learn from their techniques and adapt and evolve them to suit the type of photograph that I like to see.
'Styles that we've seen before' - is there actually any styles or technique that hasn't been used before? If not then he's probably as guilty as he beleives we are!
Separate names with a comma.