Great post. I neither love nor hate Parr’s photographs. I find them a bit predictable and not very subtle but appreciate his dedication and passion for the photobook. I find his contemporaries, particularly Peter Fraser and Jem Southam, far more interesting. He seems to take up a lot of space in photography culture and, I expect, some people resent him for this. Accusations of malign intent (even overt racism) are overstated in my view. I think he is sometimes clumsy and insensitive and perhaps over-confident. He has certainly left his mark and that should be respected, if not admired. I look forward to reading more of your posts.
Thank you for this considered response and for the recommendations, although it is interesting that neither focus on people whereas Parr is drawn to the human.
We need all sorts. I don’t love or gravitate to Parr’s work. I used to like it a lot more, and I still appreciate the craft and skill that the work requires. I couldn’t say his work is objectifying or lacking in empathy, because I don’t truly know how he thinks and feels about people. I may have my suspicions, but they are only based on my own sense of values and how they are reproduced through aesthetics. It doesn’t mean they are right. It’s the same with Gilden’s work, to be honest - more severe as it is - if he photographs what he loves in humanity, as he has said - maybe it is on us to see why we can’t see the beauty he sees. This may be a stretch but if you sit with the question it is not so easily dismissed.
It’s interesting to read HCB’s take, given that he is essentially the progeny of surrealism.
This isn’t exclusive to Parr, but I find much of the criticism, especially the criticism that does away with the import of intent, the criticism that confidently declares what his work is and isn’t (pretty tough to do this well with photography) says more about the critic than the art itself. The critic that has such a severe view of the work and the maker may sit a little bit closer to the fascist instinct than they may realize.
I didn't realise Martin Parr was divisive. Nor did I ever get the impression he was sneering or even mocking his subjects. He revels in the strangeness of the mundane, which is an important artistic undertaking. His subjects are like the marginal characters in Cohen brothers films. If they appear comic, I take it as a reminder that we are all silly from someone else's perspective.
Yeah, poking fun a bit is fine I think, and often brings a welcome note of humour. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on Philip Larkin's poem about Prestatyn!
Fascinating post Neil. It was interesting to read so many different views. I like much of his work, but he is perhaps too prolific. He may be better to publish fewer books with more consistent quality. I think Simon Murphy’s reaction summarises best how I feel. I really like his early work, but I’m not so sure about his recent work. I’ll revisit in 20 years and let you know if my opinion has changed…
As for the person, I’m a little biased as I live half an hour away from the Martin Parr Foundation and regularly visit (I’m going to his talk on fashion on Monday). I’m very grateful that he does so much to champion British documentary photography and, via his many events (all very reasonably priced), have been in the presence of many iconic photographers of the last few decades. One of my most memorable moments was at a seminar day on 80’s documentary photography a few years ago when David Hurn introduced us to the work of Tish Murtha.
I did not take part in the poll because i neither hate or love Parr's work — i would have voted 'like' if there had been such an option. It's really interesting how different people react to the photographs: as @perfectlight notes here, we all see different things in one image.
Martin Parr seems to be a warm and nice person when you hear him talk, and i think that one of the things that his foundation does (https://www.martinparrfoundation.org/) is support contemporary British photographers.
Neil, this read was excellent. Incredibly well crafted, organized, and sequenced. The last part with the photographers' opinions was a great food for thought. Thank you so much for putting this together. Personally, I am not very familiar with his work, but now I'm very curious to check more of his œuvre. However, I'm certainly a fan of your writing!!
Thank you, Álvaro! I did rearrange the sections two minutes before publishing and going out for the day but all the footnotes still work so I am happy.
As perfectlight says below, his work on Ireland is great; but his work on Scotland a different kettle of fish, but I'm fond of the one of the solo swimmer in Gourock pool. His Scottish work was shown at Dunoon Burgh Hall many moons ago. The MPF do a lot in providing a voice for English photographers - see recent online sofa chat with founders of Format, and also Peter Mitchell, in a piece titled 'What would Martians find if they visited Leeds?' Another excellent piece Neil.
Really cool piece, Neil, thank you. And so much so British in this discussion -- what are the "correct" attitudes for "middle class" work to take to "working class" subjects. Wow. Separated by common language and so forth. Keep up the good work.
Very late opinion on this article but I had no idea Parr was excluded from so many Christmas card lists! I think Simon said it best with this...
'There's a dangerous culture just now where everybody wants to dictate what other people should do. “You should do this, you shouldn't do that.” Most of these people are terrified to do anything. Nothing will be created if you listen to those voices. Creative people must create. That's our job.'
And I really loved this, Neil... 'It’s like spending an afternoon in a sweet shop rather than having a meal.'
Thanks Daniel! With a new documentary and autobiography on the way, it will be interesting to see if negative opinions resurface. I think the general sense is that he is the kindly grandad of English photography, yet the work still has power to shock.
The new documentary looks very intriguing. I have to say, I'm a little biased as I really do love his work and how he handles himself in general. He had an exhibition here in Belfast about two years ago and I was blown away. I get where the negative stuff is coming from but I think there may be more important issues for us to be dealing with in 2025.
It's one of the most persistent myths in the world of "criticical thinking about photography" that Martin Parr is divisive or controversial. Every now and then this gets brought up again as a form of conversation making. If Martin Parr is controversial then so is the idea that earth is a sphere. Sure, there are a few people who will yell that it's flat, but really we all know it's a sphere and we all know Martin Parr is an important, talented, and in a certain sense groundbreaking photographer.
Ha, I think you're right ... at least, once we get beyond the reactions of Cartier-Bresson and PJG. What was most striking to me is how every controversy was ultimately incredibly beneficial to Parr's career.
Respectfully, that is precisely one of the problems in photography forums, but it's a problem only to people who do not necessarily subscribe to received wisdom. Which of course is where the interesting things are, where the high priests are routinely doubted or simply ignored. These great white throne pronouncements are utterly resistant to any discussion about the presence of contempt in Parr's work. Like, even a TRACE of contempt, to say nothing of the possibility that his work is loaded with it. Contempt for what, though? Not necessarily his subjects, but contempt for something. And, again respectfully, comparing a viewer who might criticize the work to flat-earthers might be offensive to some if it weren't so patently near-sighted and laced with religious fervor. Honestly it feels like walking into a church. Sshhhh! None of that in here! Martin Parr is OURS, he belongs to US, and we have certified him with an irrevocable license.
Thanks, but we'll go find a place where wonder abides, a place where one might embrace Parr's EXPRESS rejection of the smug, self-righteousness of Magnum (while fiercely trying to get in, mind you) but also get a feeling from his photographs, made the way he wanted to make them, that he maintains a bit of contempt for what he sees. Intent may not matter, SHOULD not matter for the viewer, but when the intent starts to become clearer, is present in the work itself, then that's the photographer's problem, not the viewer's for bringing it up.
Thanks, Todd. I’m all for questioning received wisdom, but at this point, calling Parr’s work “controversial” or full of contempt feels like the most well-trodden path in photography discourse. It’s not a risky or radical take and it’s become its own kind of orthodoxy.
Personally, I just don’t see his attitude toward his subjects as particularly controversial. People read humor, critique, affection, distance, sure. But rehashing the same debate every time his name comes up feels less like insight and more like inertia.
Yeah, if all you mean is taking up long-settled, dumb, worn and tired debates is a waste of time, who will disagree? But the controversy re Parr was essentially "this is all shit" v. "OMG this is SO amazing!" and really never was meaningful in the first place. Parr's work naturally settled into what it was and is and will become.
But I doubt that you would would condemn a young college kid working fast food, who happens to be flipping through a Parr book in some used bookstore outside of Oklahoma City and who says to herself, "Hmmm, I feel like this guy has some disdain for some of the things in these pictures." Like, just THAT, Just that thought suddenly drifts through her head. You wouldn't say to her, "Hey, you have all the cognitive powers of a flat earther." Because what about disdain or contempt or, as you may be calling it, "critique?" If there is contempt or disdain - and I'm not saying there is - but IF there is, then so what? Why dismiss the work? This would be a great jumping off point to talk about why caring about WHO took the photos and WHY he took them might be a waste of time. Good things may grow out of contempt because there are things which practically invite contempt from reasonable people. I'm talking about cultural things, circumstances and conditions, not people themselves. Not in re to Parr anyway.
Been a pleasure, your profile pic bears the visage of an upbeat and positive person and you seem like that kind of soul just from our short exchange.
I have always felt that Parr has demonstrated that he is a skilled photographer with a great eye through his black and white work. His early b+w might well have made even HCB happy.
In some ways it is simple; if you can show you know your craft, I for one can forgive a lot more when you go off on a tangent.
Think of all those who declare that their six year old can 'do' a Picasso, but when you look at Picasso's early sketches and early-career paintings you know that Picasso was a skilled draftsman and a great painter by anyone's measure. Such a foundation in skill and knowledge is what allows the painter, or indeed the photographer to go wherever they please in their work. Parr is perhaps not a Picasso, but he is a gifted photographer. I like a lot of what he shoots, though I do find it a little repetitive of late.
His very direct comment on tourism in particular begs the question: Why is it OK to dress and behave badly on holidays, knowing full well one would never dare do so at home?
A very interesting post. Thank you! Just a quick note in closing: You have quoted a number of photographers, who have said what they feel. This is great! Why would you include an anonymous comment? Maybe she wishes to remain anonymous because what she says is….. anyways ;0)
I think you’re right about earning the right to go off at a tangent, though even in the early b&w stuff there is a lot of humour.
Given how powerful Martin Parr (Foundation) is, I think she didn’t want to jeopardise her future career. The comment is possibly representative of ideas from the younger generation.
What scares me is your anonymous 'Fine Art' student writing: "In art school, we're taught how to be artists, rather than how to use a camera". I would never dare call myself an artist if I neither understood, nor respected what makes my art possible. I am sure this cannot possibly be representative of the younger generation!
Great post. I neither love nor hate Parr’s photographs. I find them a bit predictable and not very subtle but appreciate his dedication and passion for the photobook. I find his contemporaries, particularly Peter Fraser and Jem Southam, far more interesting. He seems to take up a lot of space in photography culture and, I expect, some people resent him for this. Accusations of malign intent (even overt racism) are overstated in my view. I think he is sometimes clumsy and insensitive and perhaps over-confident. He has certainly left his mark and that should be respected, if not admired. I look forward to reading more of your posts.
And Paul Graham, another contemporary, makes much more interesting pictures of people in my view.
I love the way he displays them https://www.moma.org/calendar/exhibitions/321/installation_images/3315
Yes. The Shimmer books are fantastic too. I recommend the catalogue of the show Graham curated called ‘But Still It Turns’: https://mackbooks.co.uk/products/but-still-it-turns-br-paul-graham-ed?srsltid=AfmBOoood7v0s301mD3pSDQxbni54Pphzpvw2p9zviy8I7m8FpVq9vNd
Thank you for this considered response and for the recommendations, although it is interesting that neither focus on people whereas Parr is drawn to the human.
Although he has a tendency to treat people as if they were objects.
Absolutely. Some of the Think of Scotland photos are brutal: https://content.magnumphotos.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/cortex/lon2914-teaser-xxl.jpg
We need all sorts. I don’t love or gravitate to Parr’s work. I used to like it a lot more, and I still appreciate the craft and skill that the work requires. I couldn’t say his work is objectifying or lacking in empathy, because I don’t truly know how he thinks and feels about people. I may have my suspicions, but they are only based on my own sense of values and how they are reproduced through aesthetics. It doesn’t mean they are right. It’s the same with Gilden’s work, to be honest - more severe as it is - if he photographs what he loves in humanity, as he has said - maybe it is on us to see why we can’t see the beauty he sees. This may be a stretch but if you sit with the question it is not so easily dismissed.
It’s interesting to read HCB’s take, given that he is essentially the progeny of surrealism.
This isn’t exclusive to Parr, but I find much of the criticism, especially the criticism that does away with the import of intent, the criticism that confidently declares what his work is and isn’t (pretty tough to do this well with photography) says more about the critic than the art itself. The critic that has such a severe view of the work and the maker may sit a little bit closer to the fascist instinct than they may realize.
I didn't realise Martin Parr was divisive. Nor did I ever get the impression he was sneering or even mocking his subjects. He revels in the strangeness of the mundane, which is an important artistic undertaking. His subjects are like the marginal characters in Cohen brothers films. If they appear comic, I take it as a reminder that we are all silly from someone else's perspective.
Yeah, poking fun a bit is fine I think, and often brings a welcome note of humour. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on Philip Larkin's poem about Prestatyn!
Lucky you being near to the foundation. Very jealous.
The controversy is of another era, I think, when Magnum only covered serious subjectst.
personally i love him and that't it. regarding photography he has everything:
- you want to see black and white photos "documentary" style? look at his photos of ireland
- you want to see colour? well ...
- you want to see humour? parr is your answer
- mocking? nobody better to mock the british society
and it's ok if you don't agree with me: we all look at the same photo but we see different things
He is amazingly prolific and passionate about the medium. No one else comes close!
Fascinating post Neil. It was interesting to read so many different views. I like much of his work, but he is perhaps too prolific. He may be better to publish fewer books with more consistent quality. I think Simon Murphy’s reaction summarises best how I feel. I really like his early work, but I’m not so sure about his recent work. I’ll revisit in 20 years and let you know if my opinion has changed…
As for the person, I’m a little biased as I live half an hour away from the Martin Parr Foundation and regularly visit (I’m going to his talk on fashion on Monday). I’m very grateful that he does so much to champion British documentary photography and, via his many events (all very reasonably priced), have been in the presence of many iconic photographers of the last few decades. One of my most memorable moments was at a seminar day on 80’s documentary photography a few years ago when David Hurn introduced us to the work of Tish Murtha.
Thank you, Andrew. You are very lucky living so close. I am still aiming to go down this year!
A very enjoyable post, Neil, thank you.
I did not take part in the poll because i neither hate or love Parr's work — i would have voted 'like' if there had been such an option. It's really interesting how different people react to the photographs: as @perfectlight notes here, we all see different things in one image.
Martin Parr seems to be a warm and nice person when you hear him talk, and i think that one of the things that his foundation does (https://www.martinparrfoundation.org/) is support contemporary British photographers.
Thank you. Yes, the longer I engage with the work and listen to other people, the more the controversy seems in the past.
Neil, this read was excellent. Incredibly well crafted, organized, and sequenced. The last part with the photographers' opinions was a great food for thought. Thank you so much for putting this together. Personally, I am not very familiar with his work, but now I'm very curious to check more of his œuvre. However, I'm certainly a fan of your writing!!
Thank you, Álvaro! I did rearrange the sections two minutes before publishing and going out for the day but all the footnotes still work so I am happy.
As perfectlight says below, his work on Ireland is great; but his work on Scotland a different kettle of fish, but I'm fond of the one of the solo swimmer in Gourock pool. His Scottish work was shown at Dunoon Burgh Hall many moons ago. The MPF do a lot in providing a voice for English photographers - see recent online sofa chat with founders of Format, and also Peter Mitchell, in a piece titled 'What would Martians find if they visited Leeds?' Another excellent piece Neil.
Thank you, Malcolm. Much appreciated.
Ah, I can’t believe I missed that chat. Would have been perfect for the first section. Will watch later https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=16Yat4NMABM
Caaam off it Mr. Dent. You can’t win you know…
I’m game. We’ll see who rusts first.
Really cool piece, Neil, thank you. And so much so British in this discussion -- what are the "correct" attitudes for "middle class" work to take to "working class" subjects. Wow. Separated by common language and so forth. Keep up the good work.
Thank you. Yes, it is notable that the only American couldn’t conceive of him being controversial. What do you think about Bruce Gilden?
Very late opinion on this article but I had no idea Parr was excluded from so many Christmas card lists! I think Simon said it best with this...
'There's a dangerous culture just now where everybody wants to dictate what other people should do. “You should do this, you shouldn't do that.” Most of these people are terrified to do anything. Nothing will be created if you listen to those voices. Creative people must create. That's our job.'
And I really loved this, Neil... 'It’s like spending an afternoon in a sweet shop rather than having a meal.'
Thanks Daniel! With a new documentary and autobiography on the way, it will be interesting to see if negative opinions resurface. I think the general sense is that he is the kindly grandad of English photography, yet the work still has power to shock.
The new documentary looks very intriguing. I have to say, I'm a little biased as I really do love his work and how he handles himself in general. He had an exhibition here in Belfast about two years ago and I was blown away. I get where the negative stuff is coming from but I think there may be more important issues for us to be dealing with in 2025.
In the 80th photography exhibition at the Tate his are the most powerful, just saying
Are they the Hebden Bridge ones?
Not sure, don’t recall any Scotish angle, not even a wee one
It's one of the most persistent myths in the world of "criticical thinking about photography" that Martin Parr is divisive or controversial. Every now and then this gets brought up again as a form of conversation making. If Martin Parr is controversial then so is the idea that earth is a sphere. Sure, there are a few people who will yell that it's flat, but really we all know it's a sphere and we all know Martin Parr is an important, talented, and in a certain sense groundbreaking photographer.
Ha, I think you're right ... at least, once we get beyond the reactions of Cartier-Bresson and PJG. What was most striking to me is how every controversy was ultimately incredibly beneficial to Parr's career.
Respectfully, that is precisely one of the problems in photography forums, but it's a problem only to people who do not necessarily subscribe to received wisdom. Which of course is where the interesting things are, where the high priests are routinely doubted or simply ignored. These great white throne pronouncements are utterly resistant to any discussion about the presence of contempt in Parr's work. Like, even a TRACE of contempt, to say nothing of the possibility that his work is loaded with it. Contempt for what, though? Not necessarily his subjects, but contempt for something. And, again respectfully, comparing a viewer who might criticize the work to flat-earthers might be offensive to some if it weren't so patently near-sighted and laced with religious fervor. Honestly it feels like walking into a church. Sshhhh! None of that in here! Martin Parr is OURS, he belongs to US, and we have certified him with an irrevocable license.
Thanks, but we'll go find a place where wonder abides, a place where one might embrace Parr's EXPRESS rejection of the smug, self-righteousness of Magnum (while fiercely trying to get in, mind you) but also get a feeling from his photographs, made the way he wanted to make them, that he maintains a bit of contempt for what he sees. Intent may not matter, SHOULD not matter for the viewer, but when the intent starts to become clearer, is present in the work itself, then that's the photographer's problem, not the viewer's for bringing it up.
Thanks, Todd. I’m all for questioning received wisdom, but at this point, calling Parr’s work “controversial” or full of contempt feels like the most well-trodden path in photography discourse. It’s not a risky or radical take and it’s become its own kind of orthodoxy.
Personally, I just don’t see his attitude toward his subjects as particularly controversial. People read humor, critique, affection, distance, sure. But rehashing the same debate every time his name comes up feels less like insight and more like inertia.
Yeah, if all you mean is taking up long-settled, dumb, worn and tired debates is a waste of time, who will disagree? But the controversy re Parr was essentially "this is all shit" v. "OMG this is SO amazing!" and really never was meaningful in the first place. Parr's work naturally settled into what it was and is and will become.
But I doubt that you would would condemn a young college kid working fast food, who happens to be flipping through a Parr book in some used bookstore outside of Oklahoma City and who says to herself, "Hmmm, I feel like this guy has some disdain for some of the things in these pictures." Like, just THAT, Just that thought suddenly drifts through her head. You wouldn't say to her, "Hey, you have all the cognitive powers of a flat earther." Because what about disdain or contempt or, as you may be calling it, "critique?" If there is contempt or disdain - and I'm not saying there is - but IF there is, then so what? Why dismiss the work? This would be a great jumping off point to talk about why caring about WHO took the photos and WHY he took them might be a waste of time. Good things may grow out of contempt because there are things which practically invite contempt from reasonable people. I'm talking about cultural things, circumstances and conditions, not people themselves. Not in re to Parr anyway.
Been a pleasure, your profile pic bears the visage of an upbeat and positive person and you seem like that kind of soul just from our short exchange.
What a wonderful read, I really enjoyed you getting other photographers opinions on his work!
Thank you, Arsalan! A bit longer than usual but fun to investigate.
I have always felt that Parr has demonstrated that he is a skilled photographer with a great eye through his black and white work. His early b+w might well have made even HCB happy.
In some ways it is simple; if you can show you know your craft, I for one can forgive a lot more when you go off on a tangent.
Think of all those who declare that their six year old can 'do' a Picasso, but when you look at Picasso's early sketches and early-career paintings you know that Picasso was a skilled draftsman and a great painter by anyone's measure. Such a foundation in skill and knowledge is what allows the painter, or indeed the photographer to go wherever they please in their work. Parr is perhaps not a Picasso, but he is a gifted photographer. I like a lot of what he shoots, though I do find it a little repetitive of late.
His very direct comment on tourism in particular begs the question: Why is it OK to dress and behave badly on holidays, knowing full well one would never dare do so at home?
A very interesting post. Thank you! Just a quick note in closing: You have quoted a number of photographers, who have said what they feel. This is great! Why would you include an anonymous comment? Maybe she wishes to remain anonymous because what she says is….. anyways ;0)
Thank you!
I think you’re right about earning the right to go off at a tangent, though even in the early b&w stuff there is a lot of humour.
Given how powerful Martin Parr (Foundation) is, I think she didn’t want to jeopardise her future career. The comment is possibly representative of ideas from the younger generation.
What scares me is your anonymous 'Fine Art' student writing: "In art school, we're taught how to be artists, rather than how to use a camera". I would never dare call myself an artist if I neither understood, nor respected what makes my art possible. I am sure this cannot possibly be representative of the younger generation!
He’s narcissistic, best to ignore him