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

[Khufu]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

...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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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'.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

And 'high art'.

 

[krisbell]

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]

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]

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

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]

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.

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]

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

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]

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]

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?

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?!).

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]

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]

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

Yessssss!

Me same.

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