Martin Parr's Photographic Clichés article: WIIFY?

I have read this post by Mike Johnston on the Online Photographer, which provided a precious link to a blog article on Photographic Clichés by Martin Parr. I hope that some of you may find it interesting enough to read. I was very much intrigued and this has lead to the inevitable soul searching on my part. After all, it is that time of the year again, when I start questioning the worth of the things I have been doing.

Anyway, if I would categorize my work according to Parr's list, I could say that it falls right into #10 and #6, with a bit of #13, #1, #2 and #4 thrown into the mix. As Parr says, I am fairly predictable in what I photograph. Parr says that we need to consider our subject matter more carefully and that we should not be avoiding potential new subjects. And that we should have a fresh approach to our subjects. Well, who could disagree with that? The trick is, how to do it?

In another thread re. the demise of Steve Jobs, we have had a discussion on risk taking. The well known adagium "no risk, no gain" has been mentioned. I think that it applies here as well. If I want to move my photography forward, I shall have to start taking some risks eventually. Or I could just as well sell my gear and retire. There have been times in the past few years that I almost did that.

So what about you, what's in it for you? Where do you stand? Are we condemned to be taking cliché pictures forever?

I'd say so what.

Why are we so desperate to create new genres in a world where anything new (doubtful) and successful will be copies over and over again within months of it hitting the web? Just check out strobist for an example of this. Any 'new' style of lighting is a) rarely actually new b) endlessly copied worldwide practically immediately.

So why not just decide what you want to say photographically, work out what is the best way to say it and just go with that rather than making the need for a challenge or the need to be original the inspiration for your photography, the pivotal point of decision for a style. It just seems to me to be trying too hard.

The greats defined a style not because they sat down and thought 'what can I do that's different' but because they took a style which complemented their vision and achieved greatness with it until the point that people define the style by what people did with it.

With all my projects I didn't look at what had been done before or how. That was irellevant. I decided what emotion I wanted to convey and chose compositions/styles which I personally felt embodied the vision I had in mind. Now there hasn't ever been anyone shooting Jerusalem in a nostalgic style using the 6X12" format but the format came after I fell in love with it by mistake (the Camera Fusion large format back is 6X12 and although I bought it to crop afterwards I fell in love with it).

The style was the means to achieve the vision but not the raison d'être and I believe that fact is crucial, especially in today's photographic world. Lots of cutting edge styles but only a fraction of expressed art. If people stopped trying to be different and tried instead to express a vision using the correct tool (style) at the right time then I believe we would have more greats and less 15 minute wonders.

I think that the article is a fraud, because of category 9 "I am a poet". This englobes everythink that has some value but does not fall under the other categories, doesn'it?

Cem_Usakligil said:

Parr says that we need to consider our subject matter more carefully and that we should not be avoiding potential new subjects. And that we should have a fresh approach to our subjects. Well, who could disagree with that? The trick is, how to do it?

Click to expand...

But really, do we need to have a fresh approach, or rather just record what's there, factual, (or wonderful for a memento) or else find, make, design or fabricate something "special" for ourselves that's satisfying, without necessarily breaking new ground?

Cem,

When I started to write about the Armenian Genocide, I avoided the brilliant novels so as to escape being prejudiced. I concentrated on reports from Consulates and Arab historians and the diaries of missionaries and statements by Turkish officers. Even then understanding the truth and getting a guidance was tough. Now I'm working on my own portfolio. What does "my own" even mean? I'm working on that, struggling with ideas of trickery and honesty to myself. So I did not jump to read Parr's categorization. I already have enough issue with self-criticism in that regard. I'll get to that once I have made progress on my selections of my favorites.

Cem_Usakligil said:

In another thread re. the demise of Steve Jobs, we have had a discussion on risk taking. The well known adagium "no risk, no gain" has been mentioned. I think that it applies here as well. If I want to move my photography forward, I shall have to start taking some risks eventually. Or I could just as well sell my gear and retire. There have been times in the past few years that I almost did that.

Click to expand...

That's perhaps why we have "Riskit!" as an invitation to go into areas we are unfamiliar and we can't see the road ahead clearly.

Cem_Usakligil said:

So what about you, what's in it for you? Where do you stand? Are we condemned to be taking cliché pictures forever?

Click to expand...

I admit that I want my own work to be special, but first it must be honest. If "being cliché" happens on the way, then so be it. I hope I can at least avoid ordinariness and make things to be treasured. But even then, sometimes things are just so common, that ordinariness is unavoidable. Why is that even wrong? In human and animal behavior and the way nature outlines trees at dusk, ordinariness suffuses such happenings that cliché can hardly be avoided completely as we celebrate out best moments.

Asher

I didn't think Martin Parr's writing was a fraud. He added that most photography falls into his categories and that he enjoys a lot of it.

There is a more fundamental question here, which Ben alludes to very directly. That is why are we making pictures at all - there is little point, in my view, walking around with a camera hoping an attractive picture comes our way. Much better to be interested in something (subject) and wish to communicate about it as clearly and well as possible and let that guide us. That is having a passion for what we are sharing and not simply for making images.

This doesn't preclude walking around with a camera if you have a passion for street photography or found objects or pictures of people you meet (Asher), but focuses on a subject and reason to shoot, edit and print.

Mike

What I meant is that category 9 fits about everything, because it is supposed to go from Eggleston to Riko Kawachi. So any picture will fit in the list, if it does not fit elsewhere, you can always pretend that you are a poet. No surprise that the readers find out that their pictures belong to the list of clichés.

But there is indeed another point, and that is imitation. Too often we see pictures who simply imitate a known style instead of going in a new, unexplored direction. This is true, but let me ask a question: how do you convince a gallery to hang your picture on their wall if it does not imitate something that is known to sell? Martin Parr is talking about the "fine art" type of picture. How do you convince someone that your picture is "fine art"?

In that respect the conclusion to which Martin Parr comes are in fact an artifact of the statistical basis: all the pictures he saw belong to these categories, because he could not see the others. They did not hang in galleries, they did not win prizes, they did not make it to fame.