# Canon 5Ds-r Martin Parr / Magnum - Just use it on Program Mode !



## Nitroman (Aug 14, 2015)

Well this is interesting and as usual, controversial. 

Canon Professional Network interview documentary photographer Martin Parr from Magnum about his use of the new 5Ds r and his print workflow.

http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/technical/martin_parr_lifes_a_beach.do?utm_source=newsletter_august_2_15&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Newsletter

Just use in in Program not Manual Mode, get a wet behind the ears college intern to process all your digital files and then printed them as 10" x 8" for 50p.


----------



## RGF (Aug 14, 2015)

To each their own ..


----------



## tron (Aug 14, 2015)

So here is another controversial (or not?) suggestion for the photographer: Get a Canon 100D with 18-55 IS STM lens and shoot in program. It is lighter, smaller and the IS STM lenses have really good quality. The set is unobtrusive so it is proper for street photography. It also includes a built in flash


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 14, 2015)

tron said:


> So here is another controversial (or not?) suggestion for the photographer: Get a Canon 100D with 18-55 IS STM lens and shoot in program. It is lighter, smaller and the IS STM lenses have really good quality. The set is unobtrusive so it is proper for street photography. It also includes a built in flash



I would think he's being mischievous by saying just 'Program' mode.

If you look at what he shoots and his style, P mode will always set the middle ground. Then he can use the front command dial to change to either whatever shutter speed or aperture he wants, if the 'P mode' hasn't got it near enough. Compensation on the rear command wheel as usual.

In rapidly changing circumstances it does work quite well. Give it a try.


----------



## tron (Aug 14, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > So here is another controversial (or not?) suggestion for the photographer: Get a Canon 100D with 18-55 IS STM lens and shoot in program. It is lighter, smaller and the IS STM lenses have really good quality. The set is unobtrusive so it is proper for street photography. It also includes a built in flash
> ...


I think by mentioning front dial change you just describe program shift that exists since my EOS 620 

I was mostly referring to camera choice


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 14, 2015)

tron said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...



Hey when it comes to camera choice how often would any of us see the difference in an image competently shot on a 100D plus 18-55 STM ? That lens is razor and the 18 mp sensor is no slouch. 

He did say he prints big


----------



## tron (Aug 14, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...


 Exactly!  (That's why I suggested the STM version of 18-55)



Sporgon said:


> He did say he prints big


 OK hence the  

I guess he knows why he prefers 5Ds but still 100D is just fine for the streets and the beach


----------



## tomscott (Aug 14, 2015)

Ive met Martin Parr at Paris Photo as my tutor at the time was in a similar circle. When I met him he was revelling in the atmosphere sat having pictures taken with a girl on each knee being a complete letch.

He certainly came across as a playboy photographer in that I mean uses his 'fame'. He only got into magnum by one vote, but controversy is always good and he has certainly made a career of it.

If you haven't seen the BBC 4 production of The Genius of Photography you should. You will see exactly what I mean.


----------



## distant.star (Aug 14, 2015)

.
I've always liked Parr. Very inspirational.

Nice to see his stick in the eye to the gearheads! It's about the image -- and as he said you have to take a lot of bad ones to get a good one. I excel at the bad ones!


----------



## tron (Aug 14, 2015)

distant.star said:


> .
> I've always liked Parr. Very inspirational.
> 
> Nice to see his stick in the eye to the gearheads! It's about the image -- and as he said you have to take a lot of bad ones to get a good one. I excel at the bad ones!


I agree about taking a lot of pictures to get a good one. But by having (actually promoting) 5Ds he is a gearhead too...


----------



## GuyF (Aug 14, 2015)

tomscott said:


> Ive met Martin Parr at Paris Photo as my tutor at the time was in a similar circle. When I met him he was revelling in the atmosphere sat having pictures taken with a girl on each knee being a complete letch.
> 
> He certainly came across as a playboy photographer in that I mean uses his 'fame'. He only got into magnum by one vote, but controversy is always good and he has certainly made a career of it.
> 
> If you haven't seen the BBC 4 production of The Genius of Photography you should. You will see exactly what I mean.



Yup, to say Parr is over rated is an understatement. His pictures of the banal could be taken by anyone with a mobile phone. (Cue someone demanding I do this to prove how easy I claim it to be - I won't, I have standards.) Throw enough crummy pictures at a wall and eventually someone will declare it an exhibition. Stardom awaits.

The Genius of Photography was an excellent series and for those without access to the BBC, well worth getting the DVD.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 14, 2015)

distant.star said:


> .
> I've always liked Parr. Very inspirational.
> 
> Nice to see his stick in the eye to the gearheads! It's about the image -- and as he said you have to take a lot of bad ones to get a good one. I excel at the bad ones!



Yes, Parr is one of my favorite contemporary photographers. Reminds me of Erwitt and Winogrand. Likes to poke a bit of fun at today's world, but not mean spirited. Don't know what he's like personally, but he sure seemed pretty entertaining in the video. 

Apparently, he also is a great example of "P" is for professionals.


----------



## Hector1970 (Aug 14, 2015)

Parr is a fantastic photographer. His photos are either very cutting or capture an amazing snippet of life.
His books are excellent. I'd say he's well able to use a camera but he's probably not worried about the technical aspect. He's looking to capture something we all look at but never see. He's a bit of an oddity in Magnum but is probably one of their most famous photographer. Those BBC programs The Genius of Photography were great.
What's a great piece of viewing is BBC's What do artists do all day on the photographer Tom Wood.
It was fantastic insight into a photographer. 
What an amazing gentle personality he had. 
His body of work is brilliant. Looks ordinary at first glance but special once you understand the context and how the photos came about.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 14, 2015)

Nitroman said:


> Well this is interesting and as usual, controversial.
> 
> Canon Professional Network interview documentary photographer Martin Parr from Magnum about his use of the new 5Ds r and his print workflow.
> 
> ...



Since he has the credentials and experience, I think his approach obviously works for him.

Before I'd criticize him, I'd need to show that I consistently do better.


----------



## Tinky (Aug 15, 2015)

Martin Parr is high-art. Look beyond the gear. Look beyond the settings. Look at the vision.

I know it's a gear forum, but ffs. Theres taking an interest and there is revealing yourself to be a disingenuous philistine.

I don't think Parr is being ironic in the interview, but it seeps, bleeds and spills from every other orafice of his work.

Take a step back and forget about the gear. Yeah, I'm sure a lot of you could take more control and do technically better. But you don't have his vision. I get it. I get him. A 5Dr doesn't come into it. He used to shoot on a Nikon f90 with superia film.

I like that.


----------



## sanj (Aug 15, 2015)

Tinky said:


> Martin Parr is high-art. Look beyond the gear. Look beyond the settings. Look at the vision.
> 
> I know it's a gear forum, but ffs. Theres taking an interest and there is revealing yourself to be a disingenuous philistine.
> 
> ...



Please.


----------



## AprilForever (Aug 15, 2015)

sanj said:


> Tinky said:
> 
> 
> > Martin Parr is high-art. Look beyond the gear. Look beyond the settings. Look at the vision.
> ...



I looked at his pictures; they looked rather banal. As far as vision is concerned, his vision does not inspire me. Also, his pictures seem a severe waste of gear if taken with anything more than a cheap powershot. Also, why is it that gearheads are evil, but true artists like Mr. Parr are not evil, even when said true artist is a terrible artist who is a gearhead who calls himself an artist?


----------



## GuyF (Aug 15, 2015)

Having just returned from the Scottish National Gallery in Edinburgh (where there's a wee David Bailey exhibition on), if Parr is high art then the art world is screwed. Unless of course you were being post-modern ironic, in that case, yes, I suppose he is...


----------



## StudentOfLight (Aug 15, 2015)

If you don't do the final edit of your images then how is the resulting image your vision?


----------



## Tinky (Aug 15, 2015)

This is actually hilarious.

You might not get it. But then with art, not everybody does.

Sanj, you may not agree, but plenty do, even Magnum. So 'please' yourself.

I envy that his work is immensely thoughtful, yet appears effortless. It's social commentry. It's the human condition. It's provoking. It's cheeky. It's funny. It's insightful.

I've worked with one of Scotland's greatest contemporary sculptors, he usually works with another artist to assist with a lot of the manual work, but the vision is 100% his, even if he has not sanded every bit of glass fibre, shaped every molecule of clay.

A film director does not light every scene, or even increasingly, shoot every scene, but the overall work is no less his vision.


----------



## TeT (Aug 15, 2015)

It certainly works for him... no argument there. I like his vision, wish i had a thimble full..


----------



## Tinky (Aug 15, 2015)

AprilForever said:


> Also, why is it that gearheads are evil, but true artists like Mr. Parr are not evil, even when said true artist is a terrible artist who is a gearhead who calls himself an artist?



Eh? Sorry was that directed at me?

It's just that I didn't say anybody was evil. The quality of the art is entirely subjective, you say terrible, I say terrific. Who's right? Well we both are, thats the beauty of an emotional and intellectual response to art.

There's art that does nothing for me, yet I know it is art, it has artful intentions, I can admire the skill in the craft, but it leaves me cold.

I concede that those looking for technical aptitude examplar in Martin Parrs work are looking in the wrong place, so that those who do not 'get it' can see nothing meritous within it, but because YOU do not get it does not make it worthless to everybody else.

Mr. Parr may well be as well using a powershot... the intention of the work, that what raises it above the humdrum, that gives it credence, would still be there. You might think 'Oh I could do that' or 'I could do better'.

Ok then, you have the platform here to show us. Consider that a gauntlet.

I love gear. I love understanding how it works. How to achieve an effect. How to problem solve. How to use a tool to create. With art the gear is a means to an end. You wouldn't watch a ballet and discuss the properties of the flooring? (unless say it was to the detriment of the performance)

But I love art more. Well, the art that I like. I love modernity. Martin Parrs catalogue picks up at where modernity was slowly becoming post-modernity. His work is a time capsule. But not documentary as such.

His technique is deceptively simple. Insultingly simple to those photographers who struggle for years, spending thousands, perfecting their process to the nth degree and attaining nothing more than a few hits on flickr, or a runners up prize at the camera club. 

I can see how _those_ photographers, hung up on dynamic range, circles of confusion and intersecting thirds might bristle, how the seemingly casual success of Parr would rankle.

I don't look at Parrs work and think about the gear. It transcends that. 

Oh gosh, he uses programme mode... oh no. Not the worst idea when using flash, candidly, walkabout in the wild. 

I know some folk who even use auto-focus!!!

Being interested in the gear is fine. But we are all here to make images. Some do it better, or at least more successfully than others, the vitriol that Parrs work inspires in many, just amuses me even more.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 15, 2015)

Tinky, I greatly admire your fortitude in trying to educate those who do not wish to be educated. A few comments:

Very early in my career, I worked at a newspaper where a sports writer once took me to task for my disparaging comments about sports. He asked why I was so proud of my ignorance. It stung because it was so accurate. I resolved then and there to respect the opinions of those who know more about a subject than I do. 

Whenever the subject of art, politics or religion comes up, it seems everyone is an expert, no matter how little they know. And, too many are proud to parade their ignorance around as though it is a sign of character. 

The fact that Parr is an acknowledged artist is not open to debate. His work has been deemed sufficiently important to be included in the collections of serious museums across the world. Hundreds -- probably more likely thousands -- of critics have acknowledged his talent. There are collectors willing to pay top dollar for his work. And, unusual for many photographic artists, he has been recognized by membership in what is clearly the most elite group of photojournalists on the planet.

It is perfectly legitimate for an individual to state that an artist's work is not their cup of tea. It is quite another to claim that because we either don't understand or just simply don't care for an artist's work that that somehow invalidates the considered opinions of the entire art world. 

Perhaps the most ignorant suggestion is that one must print their own work in order to be a photographer. I suspect these comments come from the same people who willingly shell out a few dollars every year to buy a calendar of Ansel Adams photographs because they view his 70--year-old vision as the epitome of what they think art should look like. And, they probably never realize that Adams stopped making his own prints decades before his death. 

A few years ago, I went to a Cartier-Bresson retrospective. There were prints from his earliest to his latest days. One minor thing struck me -- the early prints which presumably Cartier-Bresson printed himself were terrible. Muddy, dust-spots etc. Once he achieved a certain level of success, he turned printing over to others and the prints showed a significant improvement. Were the later prints lesser works? Not in the least. I think people would be surprised at how few great photographers print their own pictures.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 16, 2015)

Tinky said:


> AprilForever said:
> 
> 
> > Also, why is it that gearheads are evil, but true artists like Mr. Parr are not evil, even when said true artist is a terrible artist who is a gearhead who calls himself an artist?
> ...





This discussion has been going on like forever. I've been around enough to remember when putting light meters in a camera brought on conflicts, then there was autofocus and auto exposure. So it will forever be.

I have no issues with the equipment or method photographers use. Like many here, I am equipment oriented, but its just me, and I'm not the type to think that my way is the only correct one.


----------



## Tinky (Aug 16, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Tinky said:
> 
> 
> > Oh gosh, he uses programme mode... oh no. Not the worst idea when using flash, candidly, walkabout in the wild.
> ...



I'm not starting that discussion... I'm holding up a mirror.

How dare a professional use any form of automation seems to be gist.......

With art there is no right or wrong. Thats what makes it so difficult to define.

Try and find another word for love other than love that effectively encompasses all that it means to every person.

Try and find another word for art other than art that effectively encompasses all that it means to every person.

I learned my hobby on an FTQL. I first trained in my craft on super8. The FTQL was Devils work apparently. When I moved to an A2e, well, you almost don't need a photographer, do you? 

I am very belligerent about using AF in video but everything else is up for debate... including and especially art.


----------



## Tinky (Aug 16, 2015)

unfocused said:


> Tinky, I greatly admire your fortitude in trying to educate those who do not wish to be educated...



Thank you.

The last time I developed and printed a roll of film and printed myself must have been around 2005. I was no master printer myself.

I'm struggling to remember the last time I actually printed anything...

As you appreciate... I'm not saying that everybody has and must love Martin Parr, I appreciate his work.
In much the same way as I appreciate Unité d'habitation despite knowing that Le Corb was a bit of an arse, and never poured a bit of concrete in his puff.

The best bit of all, is that I kind of get the feeling that Martin quite enjoys winding people up. 

I laid down the gauntlet earlier. Still waiting for anybody to pick it up.

I _know_ it's a gear forum, but it doesn't mean we have to avoid talking about art, does it?


----------



## Tinky (Aug 16, 2015)

Apologies for any infringements, moderator please remove if wary, but in support, heres some other examples of Parrs work. Sometimes trite. Sometimes comical. Always observational.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 16, 2015)

Tinky said:


> I learned my hobby on an FTQL. I first trained in my craft on super8. The FTQL was Devils work apparently. When I moved to an A2e, well, you almost don't need a photographer, do you?
> 
> I am very belligerent about using AF in video but everything else is up for debate... including and especially art.



The FTQL was my first true SLR. Before that I had a TLR, a Argus C3 rangefinder, and a pseudo SLR that was a SLR with a fixed lens and shutter in the lens. I also had a polaroid. All those hundreds of color Polaroid photos are now faded away.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 16, 2015)

By definition all photography is _"observational"_ it is the level to which the end viewer is moved by that observation that is important, surely?

As to whether Parr's work is "high art" or not I could not say, I don't move in the high art circles and from what I do know about high art (limited to a few visits to Art Basel) I would say being a successful artist who's work is taken 'seriously' has little to do with skill or observation and much more to do with gallery owners, patronage and market manipulation.

As for using P mode, I don't understand the hullabaloo, I can use P, Av, Tv, or M modes and get exactly the same exposure, can't most of us? Shiftable P mode with exposure compensation is every bit as useful as any other 'serious' mode, and Parr is far from the only high profile pro that uses it, tongue in cheek or not; for instance Joe Buissink, a $10,000+ per wedding Beverly Hills based pro uses P mode exclusively.


----------



## Tinky (Aug 16, 2015)

The FTQL was my Dads camera.

I've bought and sold a few TLR's when I worked in camera retail but never used one for fun, or for anything.

I really fancy one. I love WLF's. I also fancy a Contax G2 and a Mamiya 7ii, oh yeah and a Minolta CLE. I think I've owned or had extensive possesion of any other camera I've wanted to have a go on.

But what comes out any of them still wont be art.


----------



## Tinky (Aug 16, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> By definition all photography is _"observational"_ it is the level to which the end viewer is moved by that observation that is important, surely?
> 
> As to whether Parr's work is "high art" or not I could not say, I don't move in the high art circles and from what I do know about high art (limited to a few visits to Art Basel) I would say being a successful artist who's work is taken 'seriously' has little to do with skill or observation and much more to do with gallery owners, patronage and market manipulation.
> 
> As for using P mode, I don't understand the hullabaloo, I can use P, Av, Tv, or M modes and get exactly the same exposure, can't most of us? Shiftable P mode with exposure compensation is every bit as useful as any other 'serious' mode, and Parr is far from the only high profile pro that uses it, tongue in cheek or not; for instance Joe Buissink, a $10,000+ per wedding Beverly Hills based pro uses P mode exclusively.



If I'm running & gunning with flash, where subjects cannot be posed or composed, where the moment matters, I find P mode with shift & fec very helpful. Takes the focal length equations out of it.


----------



## sanj (Aug 16, 2015)

Tinky said:


> This is actually hilarious.
> 
> You might not get it. But then with art, not everybody does.
> 
> ...



No thanks, I have a girl friend. 
I did not know of Mr. Martin before this thread. Looked him up. Found the pictures OK. Certainly not 'high art'. This is my OPINION. 
Have a nice day/night sir.


----------



## sanj (Aug 16, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Nitroman said:
> 
> 
> > Well this is interesting and as usual, controversial.
> ...



Not really. By that philosophy we will never be able to discuss a movie, opera, album... I think we have our opinions which we should express. Don't we discuss a famous actor's performance in a play or movie?


----------



## sanj (Aug 16, 2015)

GuyF said:


> Having just returned from the Scottish National Gallery in Edinburgh (where there's a wee David Bailey exhibition on), if Parr is high art then the art world is screwed. Unless of course you were being post-modern ironic, in that case, yes, I suppose he is...



Royally.


----------



## sanj (Aug 16, 2015)

I never care what camera or mode ANY photographer works with. I just look at the end photo.


----------



## ishdakuteb (Aug 16, 2015)

it does not matter what mode he/she uses, except auto mode, i do believe quality images will be delivered as long as he/she knows what tone should be used to lock his/her exposure.

using P mode with DSLR is of course more challenges than those who are currently claiming to use Av, Tv, M, P modes in mirrorless.

below is an example of locking exposure (done by Jeff Ascough) that i have seen back in the day i started to learn light...

note: he was using two cameras capturing images, when switching to another camera, he was finding a tone that he could lock his exposure and then back to his frame...


----------



## Tinky (Aug 16, 2015)

sanj said:


> Tinky said:
> 
> 
> > This is actually hilarious.
> ...



That Parr is established, accepted and recognised as a high concept artist is beyond question. You might not like his work, many don't, but his estimable credentials, awards, qualified plaudits are all matters of fact.

You are very wrong, and making yourself look ignorant by saying his work is not high concept art.

You are of course perfectly entitled to hold the view that you don't like his work, you are at liberty to confess you don't understand it, many would share a view that it leaves you cold.... but the fact is his work is regarded by some of the finest galleries and most-knowledgable collectors and most prestigious photo agency as high concept art.

That is the difference my friend.

I really can't engage with Kanye West, mainly for cultural reasons, but I recognise the high regard in which he is held and hismany awards which represent critical acceptance etc. If one if his tracks came on the rasio I'd turn it down, change channel, or switch it off, as I don't like it,don't understand it, but for me to say it is rubbish or that his work was meritless would make me look like an ignoramous. 

Can you percieve the difference? You can no more say with any credibility that Parr is not high art, than I can say with any credibility that Kanye West is without talent or success.


----------



## tron (Aug 16, 2015)

sanj said:


> I never care what camera or mode ANY photographer works with. I just look at the end photo.


+1000


----------



## Click (Aug 16, 2015)

sanj said:


> I never care what camera or mode ANY photographer works with. I just look at the end photo.







I totally agree with you sanj


----------



## sanj (Aug 16, 2015)

Tinky said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > Tinky said:
> ...



Not convinced. Disagree. 
YOU are very wrong and making yourself look ignorant by saying his work is high concept art. 

You have posted his pictures above. I saw them on his website. I may or may not (I do) like his photos but will never agree that they are 'high art'. Because they are not. 

It is ok to have difference of opinion....


----------



## Khufu (Aug 16, 2015)

Did somebody mention credentials?

Martin Parr is to Magnum what Prince Andrew is to the Royal Society.

If these words mean nothing to you, have fun Googling (really, you'll likely enjoy a few amusing articles, on both subjects!)


----------



## GuyF (Aug 16, 2015)

Khufu said:


> Did somebody mention credentials?
> 
> Martin Parr is to Magnum what Prince Andrew is to the Royal Society.
> 
> If these words mean nothing to you, have fun Googling (really, you'll likely enjoy a few amusing articles, on both subjects!)



Brilliant! Couldn't have put it better myself.

I'm really quite staggered that some think the Parr naysayers are incapable of understanding or appreciating "high art". If we don't like Parr's work then we are clearly philistines. Ipso facto. QED. He who smelt it, dealt it.

Is it not possible that someone can be capable of understanding the thought processes which led to a piece of conceptual art and still arrive at the overall conclusion, "sorry pal, you shouldn't have bothered"?

It's like when an art expert comes along and declares the ham-fisted child-like daubs of some painters as "wonderfully primitive". Sorry, no, it just looks like a child did it. Unless, of course, a child _did_ do it in which case, um, carry on.

Shouldn't art make you look upon it with a degree of awe and think, "nope, I couldn't do that in a million years", rather than, "hmmm, someone is getting the wool pulled over their eyes"? Don't even start me on Tracey Emin or Damien Hirst. I expect an unmade bed in formaldehyde is as high as high art can get. And I hope it stays up there, out of my line of sight.

There will always be people willing to kid themselves that they're part of an elite in-crowd, throwing their plaudits and money at the protagonists until their collective arm gets sore. 

This has been a public service broadcast.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 16, 2015)

GuyF said:


> Khufu said:
> 
> 
> > Did somebody mention credentials?
> ...



I don't think that was Tinky's point. Whether we (including Tinky) like or accept Parr's photography as "high art" is irrelevant, there are enough patrons, gallery owners and buyers that do to make his images get representation in those sales areas we might or might not respect. Whoever is getting the wool pulled over their eyes is also irrelevant, it is the circles that the images are represented and sold in that determines their market, art buyers buy his images, ergo his photos are art.


----------



## GuyF (Aug 16, 2015)

Hi Private,

So when Tinky says, "...You are very wrong, and making yourself look ignorant by saying his work is not high concept art..." you didn't take that to mean, if you don't recognise Parr's work as high art, then you're ignorant?

Um.....

Anyway, enough chit chat, time to get some food on the go.

Regards.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 16, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> ...Whether we (including Tinky) like or accept Parr's photography as "high art" is irrelevant, there are enough patrons, gallery owners and buyers that do to make his images get representation in those sales areas we might or might not respect. Whoever is getting the wool pulled over their eyes is also irrelevant, it is the circles that the images are represented and sold in that determines their market, art buyers buy his images, ergo his photos are art.



Exactly. 

Not to get too esoteric, but one of the great failures of modern culture is the idea that opinions and facts are interchangeable. The objective fact is that Mr. Parr and many others are successful artists recognized for their work by both critics and the marketplace. Having a personal opinion (whether informed or uninformed) about a particular artist's work is not the issue. It is the idea that your personal opinion entitles you to make a broad and demonstrably incorrect generalization. 

To say, "I find Ansel Adams' work to be overly sentimental, ridged, repetitive and mentally unchallenging;" is a legitimately expressed opinion. But, to say, "Ansel Adams wasn't an artist;" is a factually false statement, proven so by the massive number of museums and galleries that have deemed his work sufficiently important to add to their collection. 

More important and more frustrating is the close-minded approach of people who profess an interest in a creative endeavor. I find it very depressing that so many people who spend tens of thousands of dollars buying equipment to pursue a creative passion, seem incapable of spending a few hours and a few dollars to study and learn about those who have been recognized as among the most creative persons in the craft. 

Instead of small-minded dismissals, wouldn't we all be better photographers if we looked at the work of those we don't understand and actually spent a little time questioning why our opinion is so out-of-sync with the collective viewpoint of those who spend their lives and build their careers on studying the topic? 

As I mentioned in an early comment, one should never be proud of being ignorant.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 16, 2015)

GuyF said:


> Hi Private,
> 
> So when Tinky says, "...You are very wrong, and making yourself look ignorant by saying his work is not high concept art..." you didn't take that to mean, if you don't recognise Parr's work as high art, then you're ignorant?
> 
> ...



Tinky's statement is factually correct, not subtle and the recipient is more likely than not to be defensive about it, but factually Parr's work is "art". 

As unfocused says more eloquently than I, separate the facts from the opinions and you can start a meaningful dialogue about 'art', but denying that somebody who sells their work via art galleries is an artist is foolish.


----------



## Tinky (Aug 16, 2015)

GuyF said:


> I'm really quite staggered that some think the Parr naysayers are incapable of understanding or appreciating "high art". _If we don't like Parr's work then we are clearly philistines._ Ipso facto. QED. He who smelt it, dealt it.



I never passed any comment on anybody having a negative opinion on Parrs work. Great art is often divisive. As we all bring different experience to any work, each reading is potentially unique. I absolutely get and respect that Parrs work is not to everybody's taste. Including people who have forgotton more about art than I'll ever know.

However, I think somebody, who decides that because they don't like a particular work or creator that it therefore isn't art, high or otherwise, *is *a philistine. 

Thats like saying a joke isn't funny because you missed the punchline. The logical conclusion is that the joke isn't funny to you, not that the joke in and of itself isn't funny. And of course a joke requires certain skills of close reading, of context, certain previous experience etc etc.

Please don't put words into my mouth again. 



GuyF said:


> Is it not possible that someone can be capable of understanding the thought processes which led to a piece of conceptual art and still arrive at the overall conclusion, "sorry pal, you shouldn't have bothered"?



Yes. Who has argued otherwise? Not me. It is equally possible that for cultural reference reasons, or intellectual capability some people may not understand either the intent or the finished work. And of course some folk might just like the finished work without any understanding of any intended meaning.




GuyF said:


> It's like when an art expert comes along and declares the ham-fisted child-like daubs of some painters as "wonderfully primitive". Sorry, no, it just looks like a child did it. Unless, of course, a child _did_ do it in which case, um, carry on.



Which art expert? Which painter? Or are we having a 'bloke down the pub knows a bloke who reckons that his pal read in the Sun that...' type moment? 

The difference would be intent.



GuyF said:


> There will always be people willing to kid themselves that they're part of an elite in-crowd, throwing their plaudits and money at the protagonists until their collective arm gets sore.



I've never deluded myself to be part of any in-crowd and I don't have the money to throw at anything, not at current Parr prices. I like what he does. It resonates. It connects. It makes me go 'oh yeah, I kind of noticed that too'.



GuyF said:


> This has been a public service broadcast.



No, it's been a self-serving broadcast, beginning with a disingenuous misquote, referenced with a non-exsistant example and typical tabloid prejudice. 

Forget about serving the public, go to a gallery. Leave your misconceptions at the door, open your mind, you might just discover something beautiful about art or about yourself, or the human condition you inhabit.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 16, 2015)

Give his images a few dozens or a hundred years, and then see if they are still considered as influential art. I'm not judging them, but the test of time is one method of judging art.


----------



## Tinky (Aug 16, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Give his images a few dozens or a hundred years, and then see if they are still considered as influential art. I'm not judging them, but the test of time is one method of judging art.



Ok, we shall reconvene in say, 36 years?

I agree that contemporary tastes are often a poor barometer, the obvious example being Vincent Van Gogh.

I was tempted to say Vivian Maeir, but she is different in that her work was not rejected, she never chose to present it.

Similarly there are artists doing admirable work who are out of kilter with establishment tastes and so struggle to attain fair recognition.

I see much more that I like and admire in the painted work of say John Byrne than I do in the work of the infinately more successful contemporary Peter Howson, and I see nothing at all that excites me in the work of Jack Vettriano who's commercial success eclipses both combined many times over.


----------



## Aglet (Aug 16, 2015)

having just zipped thru dozens of images on his website I have to say that there ARE some that would end up being defined as _hi-art_ but this sort of category, IMO, is likely defined by people who may be a little high on something other than art.

The vast majority of what's on display are of the same quality and genre as as the average travel snapshot. Looks like about a 10 garbage to 1 cool image ratio. Is that any better than anyone with a camera?
I doubt it. The ones I think are good are, of course, merely my opinion, and they tend to be the ones that are a style that one could also define as being sort of Norman Rockwell-ish. (who also took photos and then painted from them)

As PBD stated a few pages back, 



> a successful artist who's work is taken 'seriously' has little to do with skill or observation and much more to do with gallery owners, patronage and market manipulation.



We can't deny the fact that many people believe this guy's an artist of high caliber.
But it's highly debatable whether his TALENT as a photographic artist is any different or better than anyone else who presses a shutter button.

Frankly, many of his images look very similar to what I endure whenever I sit thru a viewing of someone's travel photos, with about the same ratio of, "Oh, that's a nice one!"

We're all fabulous.


----------



## sanj (Aug 17, 2015)

Aglet said:


> having just zipped thru dozens of images on his website I have to say that there ARE some that would end up being defined as _hi-art_ but this sort of category, IMO, is likely defined by people who may be a little high on something other than art.
> 
> The vast majority of what's on display are of the same quality and genre as as the average travel snapshot. Looks like about a 10 garbage to 1 cool image ratio. Is that any better than anyone with a camera?
> I doubt it. The ones I think are good are, of course, merely my opinion, and they tend to be the ones that are a style that one could also define as being sort of Norman Rockwell-ish. (who also took photos and then painted from them)
> ...



And 'high art'.


----------



## krisbell (Aug 17, 2015)

I have enjoyed reading this thread - and in particular Tinky's responses that have made me think a little deeper about what 'art' is and as such the below statements are largely directed for you.

In your reference to Kanye West you say you could not deny he is an artist even though you dont like anything he produces. Surely there must be a cut off somewhere? Does any person that claims or wishes to be thought of as an artist have an automatic shield whereby from that point onwards no-one can deny he/she is an artist because art is subjective and divisive and just because you dont get it does not mean they arent an artist? I'm not trying to be clever, it is a question I struggle with and leads me on to my next point...

...much of the weight behind Martin Parr being an undeniable artist is his featuring in numerous galleries, selling lots of prints, receiving lots of awards, memberships etc. Surely this is no proof or even evidence of art credentials by the same logic as you have used about what makes art so undefinable. All these points indicate is that someone has achieved popular status. Whether that is to do with clever marketing, right product/place/time, luck, influential friends/family, bribery or actual artistic merit is up to debate (and I suspect in reality will be a combination of the above). Most of the 'artists' you see selling millions of records are effectively blank canvas dolls that do not write their own music, are told what to wear and where to appear and what to say by their record marketing departments (i'm thinking Taylor Swift et al.). Does their meteoric success have any bearing on how much of an artist they are? I see people on an almost daily basis on the London underground with better voices, greater playing skills, more original musical ideas etc etc

At the Tate Modern in London you can view highly acclaimed pieces of art that comprise a canvas painted entirely black. To some it represents deep, insightful social commentary or an introspective expose on the state of mind of the artist at one point in time. To me it is nonsense and to elevate it to art status means anything anyone has ever produced through a creative process is art - surely this is too broad a definition?

And I'll leave you with one final, highly amusing link....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwN6dPNXklg


----------



## mdmphoto (Aug 17, 2015)

Truthfully, I haven't bothered to more than skim over some of the comments in this topic, and it seems like it's the same old question, "But is it ART?", along with some opinions on whether or not it is or isn't Art, with additional dollops of Hateritis. I am not suggesting that Mr. Parr's work is or isn't Art, High or otherwise, and I don't really have a clue, when it comes right down to it. Fact of the matter is that his work doesn't actually excite the "imitation gene" in my makeup, or even the emulation one either. If I knew what dependently might be considered real, bill-paying Art I wouldn't have time even to read the forum here, or to sit and write this- I'd be too busy cashing in my 15 minutes.
What is apparent to me is that his work sells, and he has succeeded in entering some of the hallowed halls reserved for the elite artists, critics, and makers and shakers. I can only acknowledge that and respect the fact that he is paid for his work, which is the occupation he went to school to learn, and also, my envy; as I am not able to live, comfortably or otherwise, off the products of my near-incessant shooting. I shoot because I love doing so, and shoot what I like to shoot, mostly wildlife and landscapes, but portraits, events, and people, and whatever anyone pays me to shoot. To be able to earn a living off my camera work would be a big thing for me, but it is not the reality. I tip my hat to anyone that can make real living money this way, and it is not for me to determine the artistry of their work: the marketplace will do that. That his work may not survive 100 years into the future is relative IMO: does anyone really believe that Picasso, Michelangelo, Van Gogh, or any of legions of established artists revered today worked without contemporaries in their fields of endeavor, some of which may have even enjoyed greater success in their time? Simply, who knows what will be art, or Art, after the turn of taste through generations? The Beatles were widely considered, by the contemporary establishment, to be long-haired noisemakers when they first began to gain the notice of young record-buyers; Rap music was profanity-laced garbage according to the establishment; solar energy was a pipe dream for the "Future". 
Rather than hate on Mr. Parr's celebrity status, and accompanying comfortable income, perhaps it might be more profitable, in more than one way, to pay attention to his work and perhaps glean some clue that might enhance one's own....


----------



## Tinky (Aug 17, 2015)

krisbell said:


> I have enjoyed reading this thread - and in particular Tinky's responses that have made me think a little deeper about what 'art' is and as such the below statements are largely directed for you.
> 
> In your reference to Kanye West you say you could not deny he is an artist even though you dont like anything he produces. Surely there must be a cut off somewhere? Does any person that claims or wishes to be thought of as an artist have an automatic shield whereby from that point onwards no-one can deny he/she is an artist because art is subjective and divisive and just because you dont get it does not mean they arent an artist? I'm not trying to be clever, it is a question I struggle with and leads me on to my next point...
> 
> ...



As stated before, the difference is vision and intent. This is, I might propose, the difference between 'art' and 'high concept art'.

And I wouldn't propose they are mutually exclusive either.

I don't think Taylor Swift seeks to make any social commentry beyond the cognitive skills of a teenage girls concerns, it's not the wider human condition she addresses through her work.

There are all sorts of dilemmas, should a work of design, albeit beautiful design, like the Citroen DS be installed in a gallery?

I don't have all or pissibly any of the answers, and although a confirmed fan, my point was that within the objective criteria of what constitutes attainment of success in the art-world, Martin Parr has achieved that, whether you like his work or not, that is the fact of the matter.

That is not calling somebody stupid for not getting the intent, or stupid for not liking the work, thats up to the individual, and they would not be alone.

But to deny the critical acceptance and the popularity and success, which clearly exists as a matter of fact, is stupid.


----------



## krisbell (Aug 17, 2015)

Tinky said:


> As stated before, the difference is vision and intent. This is, I might propose, the difference between 'art' and 'high concept art'.
> 
> And I wouldn't propose they are mutually exclusive either.
> 
> ...



Thanks Tinky - I appreciate the response. A thought provoking thread. I am a natural-born cynic and scientist so I think the link (causation/correlation?) between success and artistic talent, as well as the intangible nature of art, sit awkwardly with my structured, mathematical disposition.


----------



## meywd (Aug 17, 2015)

krisbell said:


> I have enjoyed reading this thread - and in particular Tinky's responses that have made me think a little deeper about what 'art' is and as such the below statements are largely directed for you.
> 
> In your reference to Kanye West you say you could not deny he is an artist even though you dont like anything he produces. Surely there must be a cut off somewhere? Does any person that claims or wishes to be thought of as an artist have an automatic shield whereby from that point onwards no-one can deny he/she is an artist because art is subjective and divisive and just because you dont get it does not mean they arent an artist? I'm not trying to be clever, it is a question I struggle with and leads me on to my next point...
> 
> ...



I have the same questions, what is art and what is not? I believe that there is talent, like drawing human faces accurately, or natural scenes, playing music instruments, taking photos, and many of the other art related talents, but I don't believe in what is defined as art, I think everything is ruled by rules, scientific rules, even how we perceive things, like how can we describe a scene as beautiful, or a woman face, or the cuteness of children, there are rules that are baked into our brains, and the photography guides like rule of thirds and the golden ratio are hints at this.


----------



## Tinky (Aug 17, 2015)

I also err towards absolutes than abstracts. There are things that exist that we can hold, touch, and things that are real to only us, that we feel, in both categories there are things for which there are not sufficient words...
the joy of requited love, the hollow pain of grief, the appreciation of light falling a certain way on a feminine curve, the anger at a blatant injustice.

I laid down three guantlets earlier... for those dismissing parrs work as holiday snaps, or without talent or merit.. go on, show me some work you've done thats of more value.

Whilst they are at it lets see if they can come up with another word that encapsulates the meaning and feeling of 'love' or 'art'.

I'm all for knowing about the rule of thirds, understanding meter compensation, zone contrasting, but these are devices and means to an end. Styles that can be developed.

Here's a hand grenade... I think anybody given enough time could learn how to take a really good really well planned out landscape, at the right place, facing the right way, at the right time, with the right gear and the right settings... I don't think everybody could produce great portraiture, which requires a more emotional skill set, empathy, engagement, character reading, even though the environments are arguably more controlled and predictable.


----------



## krisbell (Aug 17, 2015)

Tinky said:


> I laid down three guantlets earlier... for those dismissing parrs work as holiday snaps, or without talent or merit.. go on, show me some work you've done thats of more value.


Bit of a strange request this as I'm sure anyone's own work is most valuable to them. I personally wouldnt dream of taking the shots Parr takes, and if I had taken them I wouldnt dream of processing them and releasing them to the public - but what I am aiming for is vastly different to what he is. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm not sure how you could ever show work that would either pickup your gauntlet or otherwise?



Tinky said:


> Whilst they are at it lets see if they can come up with another word that encapsulates the meaning and feeling of 'love' or 'art'.


Nope, not a chance from me I'm afraid...though why do we have to come up with one singular word that identically encapsulates 'love' or 'art'. Is there one single word that completely encapsulates 'Postage' or 'leather'? Mind you, I get your point as you could give me 1,000 words and I would fail to come up with something that encapsulates those concepts (are they even concepts?!).



Tinky said:


> Here's a hand grenade... I think anybody given enough time could learn how to take a really good really well planned out landscape, at the right place, facing the right way, at the right time, with the right gear and the right settings... I don't think everybody could produce great portraiture, which requires a more emotional skill set, empathy, engagement, character reading, even though the environments are arguably more controlled and predictable.


Hmmmm, I really want to disagree but cant with 100% confidence! I think with enough time, resources and the right model/props etc anyone could capture an amazing portrait by simply taking 1,000s of images of a great model in fantastic lighting. However, for me the real skill would be in selecting the single image out of those 1,000s that tells a story better than any of the other images...


----------



## sanj (Aug 17, 2015)

In my opinion his pictures are ok ok. Not bad at all. Not so great. A quirky observer of life at best. 

I guess 'hi art' means different to different people.

You all claim he is highly successful. Good for him!!! But that will not make him a 'high art' photographer to me.


----------



## sanj (Aug 17, 2015)

krisbell said:


> I have enjoyed reading this thread - and in particular Tinky's responses that have made me think a little deeper about what 'art' is and as such the below statements are largely directed for you.
> 
> In your reference to Kanye West you say you could not deny he is an artist even though you dont like anything he produces. Surely there must be a cut off somewhere? Does any person that claims or wishes to be thought of as an artist have an automatic shield whereby from that point onwards no-one can deny he/she is an artist because art is subjective and divisive and just because you dont get it does not mean they arent an artist? I'm not trying to be clever, it is a question I struggle with and leads me on to my next point...
> 
> ...



Yessssss!

Me same. 

The photographer we discussing is not 'nonsense' at all, just not the type that produces, to me, 'high art' photos.


----------



## tron (Aug 17, 2015)

sanj said:


> krisbell said:
> 
> 
> > I have enjoyed reading this thread - and in particular Tinky's responses that have made me think a little deeper about what 'art' is and as such the below statements are largely directed for you.
> ...


+1
+1
+1


----------



## sanj (Aug 17, 2015)

There are 3 examples of his photos posted on this tread to prove he is 'hi art' and am assuming are amongst his best. 
1. The first photo is interesting ONLY because it is a top angle. 
2. The second photo is a 'tourist' photo seen dime a dozen. Taken dime a dozen. Slice of life but nothing special. 
3. The third photo is what my daughter and her friends take when having fun. Art?? Please!

But lets not make this discussion akin to religion. Different people like different things. Different people find different photos 'high' art. 

We should not call anyone ignorant or stupid because of their choices, that kicks of a heated debate.


----------



## Hector1970 (Aug 17, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Give his images a few dozens or a hundred years, and then see if they are still considered as influential art. I'm not judging them, but the test of time is one method of judging art.


We won't be around in a few hundreds years (probably) but I think Martin Parr's work will stand the test of time. His work says alot about our age and especially about British society. I've no idea if he is technically proficient with a camera but he has some brilliant pictures (some funny, some sarcastic, some very cutting). His books are well worth looking at. People glance at this work and dimiss it but give it a second or third look and you see the meaning in his pictures. The are not lucky pictures they are a matter of a photographer being in the right place and time for the decisive moment. That type of photography is not to everyones taste, but I do think its photography that matters. It holds a mirror to our society and its not always pretty.


----------



## TheJock (Aug 17, 2015)

Tinky said:


> ........But what comes out any of them still wont be art.


This really is an interesting thread, and this is the difference between Martin Parr and us? he has overwhelming self-belief!! (i'm not suggesting you don't Tinky  )
I do not follow art or artists at all, fine art or whatever; but I think I can understand what Tinky is saying and suggesting in his defence of Martin Parr, he is a fan and that in itself means to him that Mr Parr is a fine art artist.
In reference to the Kanye comment, again he’s (definitely) not to my taste, but he sells out stadiums and is a platinum artist, because I simply can’t stand the genre does that mean he’s not an artist? 
Likewise, I have been an devoted Metallica fan since 1985 and I’ve seen then 14 times, if a Kanye fan was to be made to listen to them back to back he’d be saying the same thing I just said above.
It’s all horses for courses…………………and I’d never seen a single piece of Martin Parr art until Tinky posted those examples!! 
I must admit that I can see the humour in his work, the abstract beach sunbathers with the Disney characters facing the viewer, the irony of the fully clothed Muslim women at the beach where flesh is the norm, and finally the number of people “holding up” the leaning tower taken from a funny angle showing how silly they look; I must admit, that one made me LOL.


----------



## sanj (Aug 17, 2015)

Hector1970 said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Give his images a few dozens or a hundred years, and then see if they are still considered as influential art. I'm not judging them, but the test of time is one method of judging art.
> ...



Sure. Agree. I think he is a fine, twisted journalistic photographer. But 'high' art?


----------



## Tinky (Aug 17, 2015)

sanj said:


> There are 3 examples of his photos posted on this tread to prove he is 'hi art' and am assuming are amongst his best.
> 1. The first photo is interesting ONLY because it is a top angle.
> 2. The second photo is a 'tourist' photo seen dime a dozen. Taken dime a dozen. Slice of life but nothing special.
> 3. The third photo is what my daughter and her friends take when having fun. Art?? Please!
> ...



1. Bricolage. Patterns. Composition. Colour. Abstract (assisted by the POV) detached (it's not part of it, it's not a holiday makers snap, it's observing, and so inviting you to observe.

2. Each to their own. I take it as a comment on islamaphobia. In the west we are increasingly encouraged to view muslims as all being very serious and pious at best, or Isis extremists at worst. This pinpricks that perception. It's actually great fun.

3. It's a familiar scene. And there are tourists within it. All doing the funny leaning tower thing.
But thats not what he's captured. He's captured a group all doing the same thing. Not one is actually in line with the tower, he's capturing a moment of everybody elses captured moment. It is the anti-photo-bomb, the anti-selfie. And again, mocks the human condition. It's not the snap you would take of a friend of or loved one.
It's an observation on you taking the snap. En masse. I think it is very simple and very very funny.

I don't want to be the evangelist for Parrs work, each can make up their own mind, but I simply warn not to dismiss it as art simply because it is not to your taste, that is what is in danger of seeming stupid.


----------



## sanj (Aug 17, 2015)

I travel to Islamic countries often and live in a country teaming with Muslims. Such sights are common place in Gulf and here. Does not have any impact to me. And is not fine art. 

Yes I get the humor in the tower photo but not the fine (high) art.

I conclude your and my definition of high art is different. Simple. 

Calling these photos high art is what is in danger of seeming stupid.


----------



## benique (Aug 17, 2015)

Martin Parr seams to be very good at what he is doing. The most important skill in business is always marketing! He created a brand and he can sell his ideas. If an artist is successful enough then he can sell mundane stuff for prices nobody would pay without knowing about the brand. I'm not saying he is one of those but I just wanna share a few thought to think about.


----------



## Tinky (Aug 17, 2015)

sanj said:


> Calling these photos high art is what is in danger of seeming stupid.



I'm in pretty good company at least.


----------



## GuyF (Aug 17, 2015)

Hello all,

Me again. I think the nub of this "Parr: art-or-not" debate may simply boil down to Tinky's view that Parr's work is high art. His use of the word "high" differentiates it from, for want of a better expression, "run-of-the-mill art".

Isn't it time we attempted to defined this etheral term? I'm not suggesting this is the absolute last word in definitions (I found it on the web, for crying out loud), but it seems a workable description for our purposes - http://www.thefreedictionary.com/High+Art -

_"art which deals with lofty and dignified subjects and is characterized by an elevated style avoiding all meretricious display."_

So based on that definition, is Parr high art? I haven't said his work isn't art, just he is in no way, shape or form, _high_ art.

It was suggested earlier I should perhaps visit a gallery to broaden my views. I did mention on page 2 of this thread that I'd just returned from the National Gallery in Edinburgh. Perhaps not arty enough for some?

I expect this thread will run for a little while longer until someone invokes the "this is how Nazi Germany started" get-out clause for all internet arguments, but until then, ponder this: recently on the BBC's Countryfile (Sunday nights if you want to tune in), they followed Parr around a local county fair as he spoke about his work etc. Though I forget the exact figures, he said he'd often take hundreds, if not thousands of shots, just to get a handful of keepers. On that particular day, I think he said he'd taken 300 or 400. I suspect we could all get the same hit rate if we applied ourselves.

Finally, just a quick observation from my trip to Edinburgh on Saturday - walking along the street there was a couple with a dog talking to someone. The person was bending down, offering a titbit to the dog. From my perspective with the dog facing directly away from me, it appeared as if the person was offering the food to the dog's behind. I could've taken a quick snap but chose not to. A cheap gag. Not art. Not even high art.

Regards.


----------



## Tinky (Aug 17, 2015)

High-art as an abbreviation of high concept art. Art with an intention, with an agenda, other than to say 'ooh thats a nice picture'. There is no skill in blending in to the point where you are invisible enough to get natural candids? Theres no skill in hitting that decisive moment? Even if it is one frame in 200. Maybe you have a higher hit rate. Maybe Parr is looking for something that you just can't see.

The way you describe Parrs working methods we could as easily dismiss any street photographer as a happy snapper. Which is fine, if you like.

The National Gallery is of course utterly fantastic, and the quality of the curation without doubt, there is to my mind a bias towards the historical, I prefer the collection policy of somewhere like Aberdeen, who's curators work almost exclusively in the zeitgeist. 

To know where we have been is of course of value, but historically art has been from the commissions or collections of the powerful, a point on which I'm with Karl Popper, I'm not as interested in the history of the great as I am in a response to today through an ordinary persons eyes. Thats why Parr appeals to me so much.

But this is not the nub of my rub.

It's that dismissal of something entirely because it is not to your taste.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 17, 2015)

Tinky, you are a brave soul to try so hard to bring enlightenment to those who do not wish to be enlightened. 

Sanj, I'm deeply disappointed in your comments. You are a good photographer and your close-minded comments are really beneath you. 

I went through some of my books to see if I could find something that would enlighten people and explain Parr's vision. I suspect it is useless because those who do not wish to see and grow have already closed their minds off to learning.

Nonetheless, I think the description of Parr in "The Genius of Photography" is particularly good. I won't quote it in its entirety but, it reads in part:



> Another passionate advocate of the photobook is Martin Parr, and, although single images in _The Last Resort_ (1986) have become contemporary classics, Parr would argue that it is in the context of the book that they flourish to their fullest extent. _The Last Resort_ was his first book in colour and represents a significant moment in both British and European photography – a major body of documentary photography in colour rather than monochrome.
> 
> The 'resort' in question is New Brighton in the Wirral...once the No. 1 holiday resort in the north-west of England...It was in decline when Parr began photographing it, but it was still a popular day-out destination on weekends and bank holidays...
> 
> ...



So, in summary, Parr works in the tradition of documentary photographers going back to Walker Evans, W. Eugene Smith, Mary Ellen Mark, Dorothea Lange, Lewis Hine, Robert Frank, Henri Cartier Bresson, and many, many others. 

If you do not believe that documentary photography is art, then you will reject Parr and all others. But, there is a long tradition of documentary photography as high art and in fact, a good argument can be made that photography is the best medium for raising documentation to the level of art.

A key component of documentary photography is that no single image can really do justice to the story the photographer is trying to tell. This can be confusing to people who are used to seeing documentary photographers' work in some sort of "best of" collection. But the reality is that almost all of these photographs are part of a larger work that is more representative of the photographer's vision. You may be aware of an iconic image from _Minamata _but to really appreciate the work, you need to see Smith's entire book. 

Thus, while individual images from Parr's works are interesting, to fully appreciate his genius, one would need to see his images in context, as he intended them.

As noted, Parr was one of the first documentarions to work in color and, more importantly, to use color as an integral part of his images. It is one thing to take a picture in color, it is quite another to master color to the extent that it intensifies the personal vision. Even today, there are many documentary photographers who have been unable to successfully incorporate color into their work. 

Finally, it is important to understand what art is all about. If you believe art is only about creating pretty pictures then you will never "get" most of modern art photography. But, frankly, Ansel Adams created enough pretty pictures to satisfy the world and many artists and others moved on decades ago from that aesthetic. 

Will Parr earn a place in the great pantheon of art? I don't know. Usually, those spots are reserved for artists whose vision changes the world. People like Paul Strand, whose "White Fence" completely upended the photographic world in 1916 -- destroying the popular aesthetic and creating an entirely new way of seeing that was true to the unique and intrinsic nature of photography. Or people like Robert Frank who completely upended the documentary tradition with a vision that was perfectly attuned to the second half of the 20th century. 

I like Parr and I love the way he sees the world. He is an innovator and because of that innovation he rightly deserves a spot in the history of photography, but where that ranking may be only time will tell. I suspect that someone like Andreas Gursky (another artist often maligned on these pages) may ultimately be recognized as a more important figure in the history of photography because Gursky invented something new in the way we see the world.


----------



## sanj (Aug 18, 2015)

Tinky.
I respect your posts and posting some photos I found on internet to _indicate_ what is 'high' art photography to ME. Posting so that you know I am not creating an argument. 
I know they are 'dry' but *high* art tends to be that.

Mods: Delete this post if you find it inappropriate.


----------



## sanj (Aug 18, 2015)

unfocused said:


> Tinky, you are a brave soul to try so hard to bring enlightenment to those who do not wish to be enlightened.
> 
> Sanj, I'm deeply disappointed in your comments. You are a good photographer and your close-minded comments are really beneath you.
> 
> ...



Hi Unfocused. I am trying hard to put things in perspective here and learn. I am not putting down anyone if that is what is coming across. I am saying the photographer takes interesting slice of life, humorous, documentary photos. But as hard as I try, I can't place these photos in 'high' art category. That is something else to me. And thanks for the compliment, I feel the same towards you.


----------



## lichtmalen (Aug 18, 2015)

I didn't read through the thread if anyone said this before but I believe there is no 5DsR necessary to shoot a bunch of drunk girls or wrinkly butts. There is absolutely no aspect of "art" in these pics and maybe I'm too young or something but I honestly don't know what this article is doing on Canons website. Oh and on the sidenote, taking that wrinkly butt shot at f/16 completely ruins the resolution advantage due to diffraction blur.


----------



## sanj (Aug 18, 2015)

lichtmalen said:


> I didn't read through the thread - You should.
> 
> if anyone said this before but I believe there is no 5DsR necessary to shoot a bunch of drunk girls or wrinkly butts.
> - how does it matter which camera?
> ...


----------



## lichtmalen (Aug 18, 2015)

Sorry, don't care enough. It's just a bunch of snapshots that could've been done with some point and shoot.


----------



## Tinky (Aug 18, 2015)

lichtmalen said:


> Sorry, don't care enough. It's just a bunch of snapshots that could've been done with some point and shoot.



Like any street photography then?


I mean, mona lisa, thats just some oil on a bit of cloth, any competent high school art student could do something similar. Those Henry Moore sculptures... it's just plaster of paris shaped into some curves innit?


----------



## Tinky (Aug 18, 2015)

sanj said:


> Tinky.
> I respect your posts and posting some photos I found on internet to _indicate_ what is 'high' art photography to ME.



With all due respect, my point is that it is the intent of the creator that makes something high concept or not.
Regardless of whether anybody else likes or gets it.

It's clear from the many interviews with Martin Parr that there is serious considered intent in his work.

That is what makes it high art.

The fact that critics, gallerys and collectors opinions tend to back him up is evidence that he has sufficient credence in his intent and output, that informed readers of the text see the intent to be taken seriously...

Whether you like the art or not, whether you or I consider it high concept or not is entirely a moot point.


----------



## sanj (Aug 18, 2015)

lichtmalen said:


> Sorry, don't care enough. It's just a bunch of snapshots that could've been done with some point and shoot.



Yes absolutely agree. But that does not make them bad. Or good.


----------



## sanj (Aug 18, 2015)

Tinky said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > Tinky.
> ...



I guess we will disagree on this....


----------



## sanj (Aug 18, 2015)

I find myself repeating the same thing on this thread so I think I have nothing more to add.


----------



## Tinky (Aug 18, 2015)

Word.


----------



## krisbell (Aug 18, 2015)

Tinky said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > 2. The second photo is a 'tourist' photo seen dime a dozen. Taken dime a dozen. Slice of life but nothing special.
> ...



This just about sums up the quandary for me. Like sanj, I have seen plenty of Muslims on the beach so when I first looked at that photo it was a meaningless holiday shot. Having read Tinkys interpretation I can definitely see this aspect. For me this speaks more about the viewer - in this instance whether they have been exposed to much Muslim culture, and whether they strive to seek meaning in a photo. In the case of this photo it requires both those conditions to be met. 

I saw similar meaning to Tinky in the other 2, and I understand the interpretation of the second picture, but even still, because it is something I have seen often it is totally meaningless to me. If Parr's intention was how Tinky interprets it, the only meaningful conclusion I can draw is that Tinky and Parr havent been exposed to much Muslim culture outside of western news. This isnt intended as a criticism, but it does show how one photo can be a "comment on Islamaphobia" and "great fun" to one person, while being a dull holiday snap to another - purely due to the life experiences. Aint art interesting!


----------



## archiea (Aug 18, 2015)

Nitroman said:


> Well this is interesting and as usual, controversial.
> 
> Canon Professional Network interview documentary photographer Martin Parr from Magnum about his use of the new 5Ds r and his print workflow.
> 
> ...




LOL, OMG, the guy's from england, the land of squires and pissboys. really are you guys surprised. I've worked for Brits before, some of the hardest working and most talented peeps I've met, but some do like their classicism where they "can't be bothered with the details (Cough: work, technique, craft) and just sit back and put on a show and take credit. 

Lean to talk with a brit accent, especially here in the state,s and watch your income go up 30% while working half as hard. ;D


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 18, 2015)

archiea said:


> LOL, OMG, the guy's from england, the land of squires and pissboys. really are you guys surprised. I've worked for Brits before, some of the hardest working and most talented peeps I've met, but some do like their classicism where they "can't be bothered with the details (Cough: work, technique, craft) and just sit back and put on a show and take credit.
> 
> Lean to talk with a brit accent, especially here in the state,s and watch your income go up 30% while working half as hard. ;D



Actually the Squire 'class' were completely wiped out to a man in the First World War. 

I honestly don't know what a 'pissboy' is.


----------



## krisbell (Aug 18, 2015)

archiea said:


> Nitroman said:
> 
> 
> > Well this is interesting and as usual, controversial.
> ...



I do say old bean, how about you keep your poppycock (racism) to yourself, or I'll set my peasant on you. 

On a different note, there do seem to be an abnormally high proportion of Brits partaking in this thread - is it a coincidence that it is also an unusually intellectual, philosophical and well-behaved thread? lol


----------



## tolusina (Aug 18, 2015)

.......as Martin explains: “I had to choose between Canon and Nikon and I just chose Canon because I liked the feel of it in the hand; the aerodynamics and the way it holds.........

Can someone please (try) and explain how 'aerodynamics' applies to cameras??


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 18, 2015)

tolusina said:


> .......as Martin explains: “I had to choose between Canon and Nikon and I just chose Canon because I liked the feel of it in the hand; the aerodynamics and the way it holds.........
> 
> Can someone please (try) and explain how 'aerodynamics' applies to cameras??



He clearly meant ergonomics, the bigger question is did he use the wrong word with intent, in which case it is artful; the wrong word just slipped out when he meant another, he is suffering possible early signs of dementia; or he doesn't know the meanings or differences between the words, in which case he is stupid.........


----------



## Tinky (Aug 18, 2015)

tolusina said:


> .......as Martin explains: “I had to choose between Canon and Nikon and I just chose Canon because I liked the feel of it in the hand; the aerodynamics and the way it holds.........
> 
> Can someone please (try) and explain how 'aerodynamics' applies to cameras??



How about a bad transcription of say 'ergonomics'... ergo aero nomics dynamics.

Oh to be perfect.


----------



## Tinky (Aug 18, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> tolusina said:
> 
> 
> > .......as Martin explains: “I had to choose between Canon and Nikon and I just chose Canon because I liked the feel of it in the hand; the aerodynamics and the way it holds.........
> ...



Beat me to it Private.


----------



## tolusina (Aug 18, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> .....He clearly meant ergonomics........


And you know that how? 
He _'clearly meant'_ one thing while saying another? Does this principle apply to anything said by anyone? Any quote of anyone can be interpreted by anyone to mean anything else? You have some insight as to Parr's mind that he did not explicitly express?

Since he '_clearly said_' he "._...liked the feel of it in the hand; the aerodynamics..._" pretty much indicates he liked the aerodynamics. 
---
Back to my question, how does 'aerodynamics' apply to cameras??


----------



## Tinky (Aug 18, 2015)

tolusina said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > .....He clearly meant ergonomics........
> ...



How do you know he clearly said anything? Were you present during the interview? Could you swear in a court of law that he said anything, and furthermore, said it clearly?

The man is either illiterate, or made a bumble, or something has been lost in translation.

In answer to your question, could the aerodynamics refer to the focal 'plane'.

Thats a little joke, in case it is not abundantly clear.

Don't believe everything you read. Just a wee life lesson you so far seem to have missed.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 19, 2015)

tolusina said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > .....He clearly meant ergonomics........
> ...



It doesn't, you are being a literal idiot. Just like the time you were in denial about the CGI in the Canon ad, even when I found direct quotes from the actual digital artists that created the effects, you still believed I was wrong! You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink; die of thirst, I don't care.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 19, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> tolusina said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Given the number of grammatical and other errors I see every day coming out of young reporters (and the fact that most of the media seems to have eliminated editors) I have little doubt that whoever wrote this story for Canon did not understand or comprehend what he actually said.


----------



## tolusina (Aug 19, 2015)

Tinky said:


> ......
> 
> How do you know he clearly said anything? Were you present during the interview? Could you swear in a court of law that he said anything, and furthermore, said it clearly?....
> 
> Don't believe everything you read. .........



Well then, what parts of the interview deserve credence and how to decide? 
Do we accept CPN Europe as a reputable source of photography related information? Or Not? Is it reasonable to assume competent proof reading and corrections?
The interviewer, Steve Fairclough, appears to be British as is Parr, no reason I can think of for any errors in translation even though the interview took place in Paris.

How did a discussion of an interview degenerate into court ordered testimony?


----------



## tolusina (Aug 19, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> ......... you are being a literal idiot.....


Owie owie, calling me names again, not working, I'm not skulking away, not intimidated.



privatebydesign said:


> ....Just like the time you were in denial about the CGI in the Canon ad, even when I found direct quotes from the actual digital artists that created the effects, you still believed I was wrong! You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink; die of thirst, I don't care.


Still fuming about that? How long do you carry grudges?
Still confused about depth of field in eyeball reflections?


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 19, 2015)

tolusina said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > ......... you are being a literal idiot.....
> ...



I wasn't calling you names, I was stating a fact. You might not be an idiot, I don't know you, but you are being a literal idiot to not accept the simplest solution to your conundrum is a pretty simple misquote/misspoken single word. I certainly wasn't trying to intimidate or silence you, listening to your ridiculousness is quite amusing.

I am not fuming about anything, lets not forget I wasn't the one who was wrong and continued to wriggle.

As long as you, you have taken several pops at me since and don't pretend you haven't. I didn't even realise it was you when I replied to your comment initially.

I wasn't confused, you were, you then went into denial and then decided any time I made any kind of comment in a thread you were involved in you would take a cheap shot.


----------



## tolusina (Aug 19, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> tolusina said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...


Yawn....... so adolescent, and so in denial.
Call me names and call that something else, righto.


----------



## Khufu (Aug 19, 2015)

This is what happens when people act like it's okay to consider the efforts and thoughts of Martin Parr to be a worthy topic of discussion...


----------



## Tinky (Aug 19, 2015)

tolusina said:


> Tinky said:
> 
> 
> > ......
> ...



What deserves credence and what does not, a call we all have to make for ourselves.

can we assume accurate proof reading and corrections? the best of people make mistakes.

i really do think it is a typo, but it's getting too silly. you win.


----------



## tolusina (Aug 19, 2015)

Tinky said:


> ...... it's getting too silly......


That pretty much was my original point, sort of a 'sense of humor' detector. You see the results.
Read my last several posts. How many statements did I make? Then compare to how many questions I posed.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 19, 2015)

tolusina said:


> Tinky said:
> 
> 
> > ...... it's getting too silly......
> ...



Huh? ...and Meh.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 19, 2015)

sanj said:


> I find myself repeating the same thing on this thread so I think I have nothing more to add.



Hoping to end this on a slightly higher note. 

If I understand where you are coming from, it sounds as though you have a problem with considering documentary photography to be "high art."

That's certainly a legitimate question and one I've wrestled with as well. A great many photographs now considered art, were never intended as such. Certainly the FSA photographers (Dorothea Lange, etc.) were not intending to make art. Their purpose was propaganda, pure and simple. They were hired to sell Americans on the need for the social welfare programs of the FDR administration and, then later, to show how successful Roosevelt's policies had been. 

Cartier-Bresson, W. Eugene Smith, Robert Doisneu, Robert Capa, Margaret Bourke-White, etc. etc. didn't take pictures intended to make "art." Instead they were photojournalists. The question really becomes whether or not images intended to document some aspect of life can transcend that original purpose and achieve a level that we can legitimately call art.

You are a filmmaker. Do you believe that some films can go beyond their original commercial purpose and achieve a level that is considered art? Is "Citizen Kane" art? Certainly many critics would argue it is. 

Parr is a documentary photographer. I doubt if he would disagree at all with that assessment and I strongly suspect he would prefer that label to "artist." His career has been built on documenting life and publishing his projects as books. Given that magazine photojournalism has been dead for decades, anyone of Parr's generation (and I fit into that category) could only achieve success in documentary photography by publishing books. Given the cost of publishing and limited return on investment, it takes a very special talent and a lot of luck to succeed in that market. Today, even that market is all but gone. But, I'm veering way off message.

To go back to the question of whether or not documentary photography is art: if all the art museums of the world were purged of documentary photographs, there wouldn't be much left on their walls. If galleries and museums wish to purchase Parr's photographs and display them, who is he to argue with them. I certainly wouldn't. 

The pictures you posted as examples of high art are beautiful pictures, but I'd be hard-pressed to consider them art. Don't get me wrong. I'd be extremely proud to have them in my portfolio. It's just that one standard by which art is often judged is it challenges the viewer to consider or see the world in a new way. While pleasing to the eye, I don't see anything in those pictures that breaks any new ground or forces me to consider the world differently. 

This opens up a whole new debate about the nature of art. Can art be simply about beauty? Or does it need to offer up more? If the sole criteria for art were beauty and craftsmanship, we would have to have a gallery on every street corner and even then, there would be too many pictures to ever display. 

We aren't going to resolve this debate on a Canon Gearhead forum. But maybe by discussing it honestly and respectfully, we can all grow a little in our own feeble attempts to make "art" – whatever that happens to be.


----------



## sanj (Aug 19, 2015)

unfocused said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > I find myself repeating the same thing on this thread so I think I have nothing more to add.
> ...


----------



## sanj (Aug 19, 2015)

Tinky said:


> tolusina said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



FUNNYYYYYY. Hahahahahahaha.


----------



## sanj (Aug 19, 2015)

To my knowledge the word 'stupid/idiot' has been used in this thread more than any other. Bad.
I apologize for for every time I used it. Sorry.


----------



## sanj (Aug 19, 2015)

Tinky what does the phrase 'word' mean? Someone did teach me when I was in NY recently but I forget... Pls.


----------



## TheJock (Aug 19, 2015)

archiea said:


> LOL, OMG, the guy's from england, the land of squires and pissboys. really are you guys surprised. I've worked for Brits before, some of the hardest working and most talented peeps I've met, but some do like their classicism where they "can't be bothered with the details (Cough: work, technique, craft) and just sit back and put on a show and take credit.
> 
> Lean to talk with a brit accent, especially here in the state,s and watch your income go up 30% while working half as hard. ;D


That! my dear boy is called “MANAGEMENT” ;D
This is the common fault of “employees” and only once they finally understand what the rest of a management role entails will they put themselves in the position to be considered for a management role themselves.
I must admit that I’ve never heard of a “pissboy”, I can only assume that it’s an American euphemism, perhaps you’d care to enlighten us on its meaning?
By the way, England should begin with a Capital letter.


----------



## Tinky (Aug 19, 2015)

sanj said:


> Tinky what does the phrase 'word' mean? Someone did teach me when I was in NY recently but I forget... Pls.



http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Word


----------



## GuyF (Aug 19, 2015)

archiea said:


> ...the land of squires and pissboys...



He's probably referring to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGfXiIXTpE0

Nothing quite like getting your knowledge of other cultures/history from the movies. I also gather Jon Bon Jovi captured the Enigma machine and William Wallace painted himself blue.


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 19, 2015)

GuyF said:


> archiea said:
> 
> 
> > ...the land of squires and pissboys...
> ...



You mean Archie's got us Brits mixed up with the _French_ ? How dare he ?!


----------



## Eldar (Aug 19, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> tolusina said:
> 
> 
> > .......as Martin explains: “I had to choose between Canon and Nikon and I just chose Canon because I liked the feel of it in the hand; the aerodynamics and the way it holds.........
> ...


(I´m late for this one ...)

I think he used the right word. When a shot goes wrong and he, full of adrenaline and frustration, throws the camera off the cliffs, he likes Canon´s flight better than Nikon´s, due to the camera´s better aerodynamics ...

As for Brits vs. Americans ... Eeehhh lots could be said ... The first that comes to mind is ... Cricket vs. Donald Trump for President?? Both being absolutely delirious ideas, incomprehensible for a primitive Norwegian ...


----------



## Tinky (Aug 20, 2015)

It's funny with America. I alternate between loving and living in fear of it.

Obama: Coolest guy on earth. 

Bush / Trump: Awwww Nawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww


----------



## TheJock (Aug 20, 2015)

Tinky said:


> Bush / Trump: Awwww Nawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww


Spoken in yer best Glaswegian


----------



## Hector1970 (Aug 20, 2015)

At least we've introduced Martin Parr to a much wider audience.
Photographic Art is like soccer everyone has their opinions as to who is the best and who is rubbish.
Those who divide opinion are often the most interesting.
Martin Parr has really made it when he has his own thread on Canon Rumors.


----------



## meywd (Aug 20, 2015)

Hector1970 said:


> At least we've introduced Martin Parr to a much wider audience.
> Photographic Art is like soccer everyone has their opinions as to who is the best and who is rubbish.
> Those who divide opinion are often the most interesting.
> Martin Parr has really made it when he has his own thread on Canon Rumors.



TN, KR, and DXO have many threads here, so its definitely not a good thing


----------

