What has become of us all?

[chuckroast]

It seems like he took a million pictures (he claims that in Utterly Stupid and Inattentive) and thousands ended up in books or magazines (includes over 140 of his own published photo books). That seems like an accomplishment. He's not well known for no reason.

I have no desire to besmirch Parr's vision but two things are worth pointing out:

Popularity is not a measure of quality. If it were, Burger King would get a Michelin Star or two. His work was, I think, popular because the topics were pedestrian and the subjects every-man. That's not a dig, some of it is quite entertaining. See also Elliott Erwitt et al.

The post 1960s Art School and the arts business that ensued produced an ethos that promoted this sort thing. Wildly so in some cases. As one example see the work of Joel Meyerowitz. I find his work banal to the point of pain, but the New York hoidy toidy crowd drooled all over him and made him a star. I find Parr a far better exemplar of this sort of photography, but to each his own, I guess.

P.S. I wish someone would make me rich buying my most boring pictures. I can do tedious with the best of 'em ...

 

[chuckroast]

I'm sure a book will be published with 10001 selfies and make someone famous.

Excellence is rare and hard to achieve. The new photographic technology democratizes the production of trash, but the only thing that's new about it is the rate at which it is produced. Theodore Sturgeon remains prescient - 90 percent of everything is crud.

What is more obnoxious is the the dumbing down of excellence and declaring everything as superlative. Witness the frequency of use of "awesome" (so completely misused), "incredible", "great", and so forth. As Rand noted in "The Fountainhead", when people lack to ability to create truly great work, they will simply redefine "great" down to the point where they can compete. The modern arts movement is littered with this.

 

[CMoore]

I have no desire to besmirch Parr's vision but two things are worth pointing out:

Popularity is not a measure of quality. If it were, Burger King would get a Michelin Star or two. His work was, I think, popular because the topics were pedestrian and the subjects every-man. That's not a dig, some of it is quite entertaining. See also Elliott Erwitt et al.

The post 1960s Art School and the arts business that ensued produced an ethos that promoted this sort thing. Wildly so in some cases. As one example see the work of Joel Meyerowitz. I find his work banal to the point of pain, but the New York hoidy toidy crowd drooled all over him and made him a star. I find Parr a far better exemplar of this sort of photography, but to each his own, I guess.

P.S. I wish someone would make me rich buying my most boring pictures. I can do tedious with the best of 'em ...

You never know what your future holds. You may yet get that big payday

The People/Things that are popular and high quality seem to have both in big amounts.
It is all a matter of taste i suppose, but you could argue The Beatles had both attributes.

Wasn't Martin Parr, at some point, a Magnum photographer.?
That certainly stands for something.

Another member said he self published 140 books. That is a TON.
Quality might be subjective, but 140 books must be vindictive of a fair amount of popularity.
I had no idea
140 books in very unique in itself.
He might not appeal to me, but obviously he appeals to A LOT Of People
Good Grief, that number is astounding

It seems like he took a million pictures (he claims that in Utterly Stupid and Inattentive) and thousands ended up in books or magazines (includes over 140 of his own published photo books). That seems like an accomplishment. He's not well known for no reason.

 

[Don_ih]

He didn’t take thousands of selfies.

He did an entire series of autoportraits.

 

[Don_ih]

Wasn't Martin Parr, at some point, a Magnum photographer.?

He was the president of Magnum for a significant amount of time, also.

He was accepted into Magnum very contentiously. Significant numbers of members said they would resign if he was accepted. Cartier-Bresson said he couldn't understand his photography - it was like he was from another planet.

Parr is a bit of a populist in terms of artistic photography. To say he's like Burger King is apt. Burger King has a restaurant in every city - what Michelin star restaurant matches that kind of popularity? To deny that "popularity" has merit is totally and irredeemably snobbish and elitist.

To a great extent, the majority of well-known photographers are only known due to being somewhat populist.

There are far fewer Mapplethorpe fans than Winegrand fans. Maybe using the handle of a bullwhip that way is the equivalent of a Michelin star.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

There are far fewer Mapplethorpe fans than Winegrand fans.

And sad that is. Mapplethorpe's Flora: The Complete Flowers is one of the most exquisite photo book in my collection.

 

[chuckroast]

He was the president of Magnum for a significant amount of time, also.

He was accepted into Magnum very contentiously. Significant numbers of members said they would resign if he was accepted. Cartier-Bresson said he couldn't understand his photography - it was like he was from another planet.

Parr is a bit of a populist in terms of artistic photography. To say he's like Burger King is apt. Burger King has a restaurant in every city - what Michelin star restaurant matches that kind of popularity? To deny that "popularity" has merit is totally and irredeemably snobbish and elitist.

Popularity in and of itself does not speak to merit. There are plenty of very popular things in the so-called arts that are complete dreck. I shall refrain from naming them.

To a great extent, the majority of well-known photographers are only known due to being somewhat populist.

There are far fewer Mapplethorpe fans than Winegrand fans. Maybe using the handle of a bullwhip that way is the equivalent of a Michelin star.

Ewww

 

[Pieter12]

There are plenty of very popular things in the so-called arts that are complete dreck.

The Emperor has no clothes.

 

[photogear]

He didn’t take thousands of selfies.

 

[gbroadbridge]

There are plenty of very popular things in the so-called arts that are complete dreck.

That opinion is dreck.

 

[koraks]

Mapplethorpe's Flora: The Complete Flowers is one of the most exquisite photo book in my collection.

I saw a few of the cibachromes of his flower photos a few years ago; those made a lasting impression. Stunningly beautiful.

Popularity is not a measure of quality.

Quality is not an objective benchmark. The term just covers up an inherently subjective decision on which criteria apply. Of course, you know this. It's just not opportune to speak of such things if you want to emphasize the superiority of your personal views.

 

[skahde]

That opinion is dreck.

Relax, he is right. Time usually tells. Much of what was considered art at one point in time vanished for good while other works were rediscovered for a reason. Many of the decisions of the salons of the 19th century are not what we think about the art in question today.

 

[Don_ih]

The fact is you can't just outright dismiss someone or something on the basis of a factor that has nothing to do with them. Popularity is one such factor.

Time usually tells. Much of what was considered art at one point in time vanished for good while other works were rediscovered for a reason.

The tastes of the population shift over time, also - as do the tastes of the curators of art - as do the standards by which art and everything else is assessed.

These judgments of "good" and "bad" are not as straightforward as they seem. They're not eternal edicts. They are socio-polically relative, dependent on a whole wide swath of cultural knowledge and education and whatever sensibilities are prevalent at the time and place. And let's understand: they are labels applied to things, not part of the things themselves. To say an artwork is a "masterpiece" is a label that can be peeled off just as easily as it was stuck on.

It's also worth noting that Martin Parr is popular for a photographer. The vast majority of people don't know who he was.

 

[koraks]

History is written by the victors. This is as true in art as it is in war.

 

[CMoore]

Relax, he is right. Time usually tells. Much of what was considered art at one point in time vanished for good while other works were rediscovered for a reason. Many of the decisions of the salons of the 19th century are not what we think about the art in question today.

View attachment 420369

It seems the trouble begins as soon as you call something "Art" or somebody an "Artist"

This is a painting and i am a painter
This is a sculpture and i am sculptor.

Regards the cartoon above............... I was the house painter at The Mills Building in San Francisco for many years.
That building has a very long main lobby, with a lot of wall and floor space.
The walls are a perpetual art exhibit.
Every 3 months, a company called Art Source would change out the exhibit.
The art varied widely......
Painting
Tapestry
Wood carving
Metal
Plastic
Photos
Printing
Furniture
Etc etc etc

Countless times, when things, like the painting in the above cartoon were displayed,
I would change the orientation............. nobody ever said a thing, Including, on more than one occasion, "The Artist" themself.

One exhibit was about Food.
There was a BIG painting of a steak. It was about 4x6 feet.
Somebody "Vandalized" it.
They took a #2 pencil and put a One Inch mark on it.

The painter happened to see it and she was ANGRY..... steaming mad.
She said the painting was ruined and put a value of 10 Thousand USD on the steak.
This was 25 years ago
The asset manager of The Swig Company asked me if I could fix it somehow.
I said yes.
She told the painter this, but the Artist refused. She would not allow me to touch it.

Gathering in front of the steak, the asset manager, company accountant, and their staff gave the painter a check for 10k.
While we were still all assembled at the steak, The Mills Building staff told me to Fix THEIR Steak.
I took a soft eraser, and in 5 Seconds, the pencil mark was gone..........Disappeared..!!!
It was magnificent

Oh Boy
If looks could kill
The "artist" was furious. She stomped off..... with 10k check in hand .... in a fit
One of the best days of my life.

We have heard the adage many many times........................... Calling yourself an "Artist" is tantamount to saying you are not an A-Hole.
It is not up to you
Other people decide that

 

[Don_ih]

Somebody "Vandalized" it.

My question is, how did you know it was a #2 pencil??? Hmmm????

 

[skahde]

My question is, how did you know it was a #2 pencil??? Hmmm????

 

[skahde]

Countless times, when things, like the painting in the above cartoon were displayed,
I would change the orientation............. nobody ever said a thing, Including, on more than one occasion, "The Artist" themself.

As one of my teachers once said: If it is good, it will also look good, when you hang it upside down.
And thanks for sharing the nice story!

 

[loccdor]

Sounds like that artist was rewarded handsomely for throwing a fit.

As one of my teachers once said: If it is good, it will also look good, when you hang it upside down.

Is this the ethos of the ground glass?

 

[chuckroast]

I saw a few of the cibachromes of his flower photos a few years ago; those made a lasting impression. Stunningly beautiful.


Quality is not an objective benchmark. The term just covers up an inherently subjective decision on which criteria apply. Of course, you know this. It's just not opportune to speak of such things if you want to emphasize the superiority of your personal views.

I didn't claim my views were superior only that they are my views.

Project much?

 

[skahde]

Is this the ethos of the ground glass?

Maybe the groundglass is where Georg Baselitz got his insparation:

Five funfacts about Georg Baselitz

Want to dip your toes into <i>Feet First</i>? Here are five fun facts you need to know.

www.munch.no

 

[CMoore]

My question is, how did you know it was a #2 pencil??? Hmmm????

Yeah, i knew this was coming
But no, not me.
All sarcasm aside, i stop well short of destroying a persons artwork.

Another funny part of this................
The building manager was of the opinion that the painter did it herself.
Easy to do. Easy to fix if your plan fails.
If your plan succeeds , you get a lot of money without much risk or effort.
.

The manager said i erased the best part of the painting, and that the pencil mark was the most talent the painter ever showed
.After purchasing "The Steak" they chose to display it proudly.............. in the office of the security guard supervisor.

My ex wife and her family all had a lot of artistic talent.
My son inherited those talents. He can play a lot of musical instruments and can draw and paint quite well.
Over the years, i displayed a few of his things.
It was easy to incorporate them within the exhibit.
Nobody ever knew.
In the beginning, the most difficult part of all this was reproducing the little Plaque that described each piece.
The flower girl around the corner had a brother that owned a sign company.
He was able to mock-up whatever i needed. They were usually the same design for each exhibit.

Actually, in the right setting, the steak was pretty cool.
It could pass for a Warhol creation.
It had that kind of vibe to it.

 

[Vaughn]

He didn’t take thousands of selfies.

But then every photograph is a selfie of the Photographer. I learned that at college.

 

[Pieter12]

But then every photograph is a selfie of the Photographer. I learned that at college.

I would distinguish the narcissistic nature of a selfie from a self portrait. Every photograph is a self portrait.

 

[photogear]

I would distinguish the narcissistic nature of a selfie from a self portrait. Every photograph is a self portrait.

another good reply !