My way of responding to Parrs photographs is to ask people how they would feel if they or their families were the subjects of his camera. We all have the capacity to appear other than what we are, and to present pictures of people being cartooned and lampooned, strikes me as despicable. What exactly have the people in his photographs done to deserve this photographic equivalent of being called unpleasant names?
Concepts of dignity and respect don't seem to figure in Parrs sensibilities, if he has any. He takes the easy route, and it is indeed easy to present people in the worst possible light. His work, if it can be called that, is no better than inept paparazzi.
I don't trust him an inch, I don't trust his motives and I don't believe there is any truth in his pictures. But what disturbs me most is their lack of compassion. Does he take pictures with peoples permission, or does he just shoot his flash gun at people and run off? If he engages with his subjects does he inform them as to how they will be depicted? I personally despise what I see as a lack of respect, a lack of sensitivity and I regard him as a self-serving charlatan.
A few days ago, on this site, I was introduced to the wonderful work of Vivian Maier, and nothing could be more different. Yes there is humour, and observation of the occasionally absurd, but Maiers work shows a warmth towards her fellow human beings, whereas Parr seems to revel in being the school bully, picking on people who he obviously regards as deserving of such treatment with his camera. By depicting them the way that he does its pretty obvious how he views them.
That this is portrayed as fine art (I always think that phrase has 3 letters too many when applied to stuff like this) is both absurd and vaguely obscene. Who would want to put these mocking, arrogant, contemptible snapshots on their wall escapes me.
The fact that he's photographically inept is even more disturbing. The Kings new clothes lives on in the photographic art world, it seems. That people follow him, and ape his style shows that there are plenty more people seeking to produce similar shallow, judgemental, and to the eternal shame of people who buy them, lucrative, images. He should be ashamed of himself and offer a public apology for foisting this callous excercise in self aggrandisement upon us, but no, he sets himself up as some kind of photographic guru, criticising all and sundry as if he had some god given right to demonstrate his assumed superiority.
My usual reaction when I see his name followed by the word photographer is to describe myself as something else, an image-maker or digital visual recorder, because I want nothing that connects me to him and anything that he stands for. I have always made sure that when I photograph people I don't know (and indeed people I know) I first treat them with respect, and secondly photograph them with respect, to do anything else is to give myself an undeserved sense of importance and turn me into the photographic bully that I believe Parr to be.