Martin Parr Research Paper
Martin Parr
38104495800Over the years many photographers have documented the places where they live. Few have stood out from the rest by capturing the country, and the things that make that country unique making us question the society we live in, laugh at it, and remember the reasons we love it all at once. Martin Parr is a British photojournalist. He documented Britain and the British in a way that made us laugh at ourselves, and remember all the things that make us love the country we come from. Not only did Martin Parr capture perfectly the essence of 1980’s-90’s Britain he also taught us how to laugh at ourselves. He started as a photo journalist documenting Britain in black and white, but doing it in a way that was slightly odd, and …show more content…
ridiculous. With the development of colour Parr started to make his pictures brasher, and disgusting, in a way that still documented working class Britain, but in a way that made us question what it is to be British. After the publication of these images Parr was heavily criticised for his portrayal of working class Britain, so he decided to give the middle classes the same treatment. He made them appear fake and over the top with a mixture of the colours he used and the moments he captured. Parr was also criticised for this, so he started to photograph people in a way that removed their faces from the picture, and focusing on other things other than their faces that show us who they are, such as the things they do, the clothes they wear, and even the things they eat. In the 1970’s William Eggleston was doing the exact same thing in the United States of America. William Eggleston has a very different style to that of Martin Parr, he doesn’t use the bright brash colours that Martin Parr does, but he does use colour, and uses it to represent the bright lights and glamour of the American Dream. He takes far less portraits than Parr, and when he does take them the people aren’t used as the main subject of the image, they are just there to enhance it and to give the images a story, instead of just documenting the way a place looked on a certain day. William Eggleston was much less sarcastic about his subjects than Martin Parr; he showed more of a desperate struggle and the deformation of the American Dream.
Early social documentary of the working classes: This image is one Parr’s earliest works. Martin Parr started as a photo journalist, who was documenting Britain; this photo was taken in Wheldrake, North Yorkshire in 1980. At this time the norm of documentary style photography was black and white, and this was largely linked to the publication of images still being in black and white, also, the black and white matches the surroundings well, but if this photo was in colour it wouldn’t be as good. Most of Parr’s early work is unrecognisable from his bright colour grotesque images, with its simplicity and distinct lack of colour. However, the quirkiness of the image does show where Parr started and how he transitioned into the images that he is most famous for. The couple in the image look at first glance to be a farming couple, who are out collecting the crops from their farm. However, when you look more closely you begin to see the houses in the background of the image, and the house look to be a housing estate which backs on to a farm. The people actually look very out of place with their surroundings; they look slightly awkward and uncomfortable. Their surroundings don’t seem to match up either, the way the farm land is framed by so many houses. The image is very flat, which isn’t something Parr’s later work relates to. The picture is almost dull, not in a boring way just by the grey sky, and the dreary faces of the couple. There are some strong photographic techniques in this image. The way the crops are planted, means that they create leading lines across the image, which all draw the eye to the people in the middle. The way the houses line the field means that they start in the right hand third, and they have strong visible shapes, but as they move across the image they 3810563880become smaller and more faded to become less visible, which draws your eye across the image.
-28536904298315The development of his social documentary and move into colour to match the subject matter: As Parr moved into colour photography, Parr produced of book called ‘The Last Resort’ the images in this book are much better known in modern society than the books that precede it. It was at this time Parr stopped simply documenting society, and started to use his photographs as a way of commenting on society, and its flaws. ’The last resort’ was a very controversial book when it was first published. Many people saw it as a great photographic achievement that was affectionate and humorous, however, for some it was a cruel representation of middle-class Britain. However it is viewed it is a bitter representation of Britain in the Thatcher years. This particular image is really a moment captured. The railings across the back of the image and the lines of the pavement create strong leading lines that draw the eye of the audience. The flash that has lit the children makes them stand out and makes them the most important thing in the image, apart from the car. The car points out to us that these children are standing at the edge of a road, and with no adult in the image, suddenly the image stops being a picture of two children with ice cream, and becomes much darker and gives it a completely different edge. The whole image becomes very grotesque and you feel a sense of sadness. Whilst we are somewhat aware these children are fine, there is a sense of neglect and abandonment created by this image.
Responding to the criticism of ‘The Last Resort: Martin Parr was heavily criticised for ‘The Last Resort’ not by those who holidayed in Brighton, as they all said the pictures depicted exactly what it was like, but by other people across the country that saw it. The people who were most closely related to the world of the photographs saw it as Parr laughing with them, and documenting the world they live in. However, to everyone else it appeared to be an unflattering exploitation at the expense of the British working classes. Colin Jacobson described Parr as a: "gratuitously cruel social critic who has made large amounts of money by sneering at the foibles and pretensions of other people." (Bishop, B. 2005) In reply to this Parr’s next published works in 1987 was titled ‘The cost of Living’, and instead it depicted the British middle classes. Parr gave them the same treatment as he had given the working class, and showed them to be just as obscure, grotesque and over the top. In this particular image Parr has used flash highlighting the two people who he has captured in the moment of exchanging pleasantries. Because the woman is leaning in to kiss the man on the cheek, this is contrasted with the pained expression on her face as if it is not something she wishes to do and it is more her conforming to social expectations. The woman is also wearing red, white and blue, which gives the picture a very subtle British feel, as with a lot of Parr’s work. It feels quite patriarchal because of these colours being so prominent. The photo feels very awkward because of its composition, with the man being almost cut out of the frame, and the shoulder of another man in the bottom right-hand corner, this makes us feel as if we are in the picture, and have just seen this moment, without being supposed to because of the crowds. Also the fact that everyone else is ignorant to the moment and looking in other directions, this also makes us feel we’ve just stumbled across a 190501356360moment that is natural. Responding the criticism ‘The Cost of Living’: After facing more criticism from the publication of ‘The Cost of Living’ Parr publicised ‘Signs of the Times’. He had been so heavily criticised for his apparent unflattering exaggeration of the lives of the people he document in his photo’s that in this book he didn’t photograph people at all, instead he photographed the interiors of their homes, their possessions and the things that they surrounded themselves with. These we not exaggerated, or made to look grotesque with the use of flash and bright bold colours, Parr simply photographed things as they were. It is hard to say that these are an unfair representation of people, and if anything they say more about the lives of the people Parr was documenting than the photos of the people themselves, by looking at a person’s personal possessions you can only get the truest insight into the person that they really are. This photo was printed in the book and has the caption "I get such pleasure from them every day when I sit in the bath." This is a quote from the person whose house this has been taken in, the curtains are very gaudy and over the top for any room in the house, the gold chiffon along with the ruffles and a bow make it look like someone has tried too hard to make their home into something it is not, and as if this curtains are something more expensive than what they can achieve. However, we can tell all this from the image alone, the caption that goes along side the image reveals to us that these curtains are also in a bathroom, most people wouldn’t have any curtains in a bathroom, and a blind would be more common, but learning that this is a bathroom window gives us the impression that this person is trying hard to make their home into a palace of luxury, on a very small budget, it makes us realise that this person has aspirations of wealth and luxury, but it is not a realistic idea. By knowing this about the image we feel we know a lot about the person who lives here, even though we haven’t seen them. Without photographing a person Parr still -723906950075managed to document and comment on society in Britain through his photography.
In 1994 Martin Parr joined the photographic agency Magnum.
He scrapped in by 1 vote, this was the most controversial entry there had ever been. (Telegraph, 2004) Many of the more conservative members at Magnum didn’t agree with Parr joining. In 1995, the year after Parr joined Magnum he had a spat with Henri Cartier-Bresson, when Cartier-Bresson attended Parr’s ‘Small World’ exhibition he told Parr he “was from another planet” (Thomas Weski, July 2012) Parr was still being heavily criticised by the Middle classes, who believed that Parr was “a gratuitously cruel social critic who has made large amounts of money by sneering at the foibles and pretensions of other people” (Telegraph, 2012) however, Parr saw himself as a ‘messenger’ in retort to Cartier-Bresson’s claim he was from another planet, Parr replied with “why shoot the messenger?” When Parr published ‘The Last Resort’ he had argued that he wasn’t mocking the working classes, he was mocking Thatcherism. It is important to remember when we study Parr’s work that he was born in 1952, and brought up in a bungalow in Surrey, Parr is a perfect example of a stereo-typical English Middle-Class man. The people he is constantly accused of mocking are people who are exactly like himself. When you study Parr’s work with this in mind it is much easier to understand that these pictures have a real sense of nostalgia, of the good times we share with one another, rather than being a bright, gaudy, grotesque sneer at the people of …show more content…
Britain. This picture is Parr’s publication of ‘Small World’ in 1995, the same exhibition that Cartier-Bresson told Parr he was from another planet after viewing. However, when we know what we do about the sort of person Parr truly is, and then we view the photos from this collection they come across as more of a friendly joke, allowing the people of Britain to laugh at themselves, but also to feel proud that they have such a strong identity. This image works so well because the person in the middle the main focus of the image, rather than the statue in the background as we would expect, the boy’s hat which is seemingly stating the obvious is so eye-catching, because of its stating of the obvious. It’s the sort of image you don’t quite believe. At this time Parr had been so heavily criticised and poorly received as a result of his apparent mockery of the people of Britain, he stopped focusing on their faces at all. In contrast to ‘Signs of the Times’ Parr has included people in his pictures, but he hasn’t made them a focus, we don’t know the class status of this person, nor do we even know his nationality, we merely presume he is British because it is the people he have seen Parr photograph previously. Parr took away our ability to criticise the types of people he chose to photograph, and 38104815840forced us to look at the photographs themselves, and what they said about us.
Parr began to really develop this style of commenting on people, and social documentary photography that didn’t involve showing us who they are, or very much about them, but he manages to give us a close up of an item, or a piece of food, from which we can get all the information we need about all the people he photographs, without him showing us very much of them at all/ This removes the ability for his work to be critisied on the basis of the people he is photographic, rather than he work, his style and that ability of Parr as a photographer. For example in this picture we can’t even see the whole of the mans torso, yet we assume he is a large man, who holidays often, hense the red skin, and who we assume is on holiday somewhere hot because of him not wearing a top, the cross he is wearing sujests he is religous, however something about the photograph, perhaps the cheep-looking nature of the cross, makes us think that this is a religon he holds, but doesn’t nessacerily live by. We can tell all this from the close up photograph of a cross on a mans chest. It is here you have to realise Parr’s genious, he is pointing out the quirky, the different and the strange, with the use of bright bold colours that shook us and stand out, but he is doing this to make us feel a sense of nostalgia, and a sense of belonging to the country in which we live, along with all of the people in Parr’s photography.
Martin Parr began his photograph journey photographing bad weather, and dreary landscapes in black and white.
As a boy growing up in Surrey surrounded by the plain and the boring, he had started to document it, to show us the everyday. When Parr moved into colour, and started photographing the working class holidaymakers of New Brighton he faced heavy criticism from all angles saying that he was “a gratuitously cruel social critic who has made large amounts of money by sneering at the foibles and pretensions of other people.” It is easy to see in his work how this might be the case, and how it would be easy to say that Parr was simply sneering at the working classes, and making a lot of money for it, but he tried to explain it was Thatcherism he was knocking, and not working class Britain. In an attempt to prove this Parr decided to photograph the Middle-classes, the people from the same social stance he grew up in. But this only lead to more anger towards him, saying that he was simply mocking the British people. Parr began to remove the faces of the people from the photographs; he began focusing on the other things that made them who they are. He fought his way to become a member of Magnum, but this did little to help many people, particularly other photographers such as Henri Cartier-Bresson’s perception of him. When Parr published ‘Common Sense’ it was obvious he had found his niche, by commenting on people, and carrying out his social documentary, in such a way that
their class, and their nationality did not matter, it still made us reflect on ourselves and our communities and laugh, not at each other, but with each other about the ridiculousness of our own lives. When you study Martin Parr’s work, understanding his background, and which he was trying to achieve it is hard to argue that what he was doing was in anyway cruel or unkind to the people he was photographing. Martin Parr’s life and his personality cannot be separated from his work, they are one in the same, and that is why his work is so genius.
Bibliography
http://www.martinparr.com/MartinParrCV.pdfhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/bradford/going_out/exhibitions/martin_parr.shtmlBishop, B. (2005) Martin Parr’s true colours. Available at: http://www.parisvoice.com/photography/35-martin-parrs-true-colorshttp://www.magnumphotos.com/C.aspx?VP3=SearchResult&ALID=29YL53ALA_Fhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/3615454/Martin-Parr-is-acclaimed-for-his-brash-colour-satured-images-of-the-lives-and-foibles-of-regular-folk.-As-he-prepares-to-curate-the-prestigious-Arles-photography-festival-he-talks-to-Martin-Gayford-about-the-ambiguity-that-lies-beneath-his-work-Ordinary-lives-extraordinary-photographs.html#
38104495800Over the years many photographers have documented the places where they live. Few have stood out from the rest by capturing the country, and the things that make that country unique making us question the society we live in, laugh at it, and remember the reasons we love it all at once. Martin Parr is a British photojournalist. He documented Britain and the British in a way that made us laugh at ourselves, and remember all the things that make us love the country we come from. Not only did Martin Parr capture perfectly the essence of 1980’s-90’s Britain he also taught us how to laugh at ourselves. He started as a photo journalist documenting Britain in black and white, but doing it in a way that was slightly odd, and …show more content…
ridiculous. With the development of colour Parr started to make his pictures brasher, and disgusting, in a way that still documented working class Britain, but in a way that made us question what it is to be British. After the publication of these images Parr was heavily criticised for his portrayal of working class Britain, so he decided to give the middle classes the same treatment. He made them appear fake and over the top with a mixture of the colours he used and the moments he captured. Parr was also criticised for this, so he started to photograph people in a way that removed their faces from the picture, and focusing on other things other than their faces that show us who they are, such as the things they do, the clothes they wear, and even the things they eat. In the 1970’s William Eggleston was doing the exact same thing in the United States of America. William Eggleston has a very different style to that of Martin Parr, he doesn’t use the bright brash colours that Martin Parr does, but he does use colour, and uses it to represent the bright lights and glamour of the American Dream. He takes far less portraits than Parr, and when he does take them the people aren’t used as the main subject of the image, they are just there to enhance it and to give the images a story, instead of just documenting the way a place looked on a certain day. William Eggleston was much less sarcastic about his subjects than Martin Parr; he showed more of a desperate struggle and the deformation of the American Dream.
Early social documentary of the working classes: This image is one Parr’s earliest works. Martin Parr started as a photo journalist, who was documenting Britain; this photo was taken in Wheldrake, North Yorkshire in 1980. At this time the norm of documentary style photography was black and white, and this was largely linked to the publication of images still being in black and white, also, the black and white matches the surroundings well, but if this photo was in colour it wouldn’t be as good. Most of Parr’s early work is unrecognisable from his bright colour grotesque images, with its simplicity and distinct lack of colour. However, the quirkiness of the image does show where Parr started and how he transitioned into the images that he is most famous for. The couple in the image look at first glance to be a farming couple, who are out collecting the crops from their farm. However, when you look more closely you begin to see the houses in the background of the image, and the house look to be a housing estate which backs on to a farm. The people actually look very out of place with their surroundings; they look slightly awkward and uncomfortable. Their surroundings don’t seem to match up either, the way the farm land is framed by so many houses. The image is very flat, which isn’t something Parr’s later work relates to. The picture is almost dull, not in a boring way just by the grey sky, and the dreary faces of the couple. There are some strong photographic techniques in this image. The way the crops are planted, means that they create leading lines across the image, which all draw the eye to the people in the middle. The way the houses line the field means that they start in the right hand third, and they have strong visible shapes, but as they move across the image they 3810563880become smaller and more faded to become less visible, which draws your eye across the image.
-28536904298315The development of his social documentary and move into colour to match the subject matter: As Parr moved into colour photography, Parr produced of book called ‘The Last Resort’ the images in this book are much better known in modern society than the books that precede it. It was at this time Parr stopped simply documenting society, and started to use his photographs as a way of commenting on society, and its flaws. ’The last resort’ was a very controversial book when it was first published. Many people saw it as a great photographic achievement that was affectionate and humorous, however, for some it was a cruel representation of middle-class Britain. However it is viewed it is a bitter representation of Britain in the Thatcher years. This particular image is really a moment captured. The railings across the back of the image and the lines of the pavement create strong leading lines that draw the eye of the audience. The flash that has lit the children makes them stand out and makes them the most important thing in the image, apart from the car. The car points out to us that these children are standing at the edge of a road, and with no adult in the image, suddenly the image stops being a picture of two children with ice cream, and becomes much darker and gives it a completely different edge. The whole image becomes very grotesque and you feel a sense of sadness. Whilst we are somewhat aware these children are fine, there is a sense of neglect and abandonment created by this image.
Responding to the criticism of ‘The Last Resort: Martin Parr was heavily criticised for ‘The Last Resort’ not by those who holidayed in Brighton, as they all said the pictures depicted exactly what it was like, but by other people across the country that saw it. The people who were most closely related to the world of the photographs saw it as Parr laughing with them, and documenting the world they live in. However, to everyone else it appeared to be an unflattering exploitation at the expense of the British working classes. Colin Jacobson described Parr as a: "gratuitously cruel social critic who has made large amounts of money by sneering at the foibles and pretensions of other people." (Bishop, B. 2005) In reply to this Parr’s next published works in 1987 was titled ‘The cost of Living’, and instead it depicted the British middle classes. Parr gave them the same treatment as he had given the working class, and showed them to be just as obscure, grotesque and over the top. In this particular image Parr has used flash highlighting the two people who he has captured in the moment of exchanging pleasantries. Because the woman is leaning in to kiss the man on the cheek, this is contrasted with the pained expression on her face as if it is not something she wishes to do and it is more her conforming to social expectations. The woman is also wearing red, white and blue, which gives the picture a very subtle British feel, as with a lot of Parr’s work. It feels quite patriarchal because of these colours being so prominent. The photo feels very awkward because of its composition, with the man being almost cut out of the frame, and the shoulder of another man in the bottom right-hand corner, this makes us feel as if we are in the picture, and have just seen this moment, without being supposed to because of the crowds. Also the fact that everyone else is ignorant to the moment and looking in other directions, this also makes us feel we’ve just stumbled across a 190501356360moment that is natural. Responding the criticism ‘The Cost of Living’: After facing more criticism from the publication of ‘The Cost of Living’ Parr publicised ‘Signs of the Times’. He had been so heavily criticised for his apparent unflattering exaggeration of the lives of the people he document in his photo’s that in this book he didn’t photograph people at all, instead he photographed the interiors of their homes, their possessions and the things that they surrounded themselves with. These we not exaggerated, or made to look grotesque with the use of flash and bright bold colours, Parr simply photographed things as they were. It is hard to say that these are an unfair representation of people, and if anything they say more about the lives of the people Parr was documenting than the photos of the people themselves, by looking at a person’s personal possessions you can only get the truest insight into the person that they really are. This photo was printed in the book and has the caption "I get such pleasure from them every day when I sit in the bath." This is a quote from the person whose house this has been taken in, the curtains are very gaudy and over the top for any room in the house, the gold chiffon along with the ruffles and a bow make it look like someone has tried too hard to make their home into something it is not, and as if this curtains are something more expensive than what they can achieve. However, we can tell all this from the image alone, the caption that goes along side the image reveals to us that these curtains are also in a bathroom, most people wouldn’t have any curtains in a bathroom, and a blind would be more common, but learning that this is a bathroom window gives us the impression that this person is trying hard to make their home into a palace of luxury, on a very small budget, it makes us realise that this person has aspirations of wealth and luxury, but it is not a realistic idea. By knowing this about the image we feel we know a lot about the person who lives here, even though we haven’t seen them. Without photographing a person Parr still -723906950075managed to document and comment on society in Britain through his photography.
In 1994 Martin Parr joined the photographic agency Magnum.
He scrapped in by 1 vote, this was the most controversial entry there had ever been. (Telegraph, 2004) Many of the more conservative members at Magnum didn’t agree with Parr joining. In 1995, the year after Parr joined Magnum he had a spat with Henri Cartier-Bresson, when Cartier-Bresson attended Parr’s ‘Small World’ exhibition he told Parr he “was from another planet” (Thomas Weski, July 2012) Parr was still being heavily criticised by the Middle classes, who believed that Parr was “a gratuitously cruel social critic who has made large amounts of money by sneering at the foibles and pretensions of other people” (Telegraph, 2012) however, Parr saw himself as a ‘messenger’ in retort to Cartier-Bresson’s claim he was from another planet, Parr replied with “why shoot the messenger?” When Parr published ‘The Last Resort’ he had argued that he wasn’t mocking the working classes, he was mocking Thatcherism. It is important to remember when we study Parr’s work that he was born in 1952, and brought up in a bungalow in Surrey, Parr is a perfect example of a stereo-typical English Middle-Class man. The people he is constantly accused of mocking are people who are exactly like himself. When you study Parr’s work with this in mind it is much easier to understand that these pictures have a real sense of nostalgia, of the good times we share with one another, rather than being a bright, gaudy, grotesque sneer at the people of …show more content…
Britain. This picture is Parr’s publication of ‘Small World’ in 1995, the same exhibition that Cartier-Bresson told Parr he was from another planet after viewing. However, when we know what we do about the sort of person Parr truly is, and then we view the photos from this collection they come across as more of a friendly joke, allowing the people of Britain to laugh at themselves, but also to feel proud that they have such a strong identity. This image works so well because the person in the middle the main focus of the image, rather than the statue in the background as we would expect, the boy’s hat which is seemingly stating the obvious is so eye-catching, because of its stating of the obvious. It’s the sort of image you don’t quite believe. At this time Parr had been so heavily criticised and poorly received as a result of his apparent mockery of the people of Britain, he stopped focusing on their faces at all. In contrast to ‘Signs of the Times’ Parr has included people in his pictures, but he hasn’t made them a focus, we don’t know the class status of this person, nor do we even know his nationality, we merely presume he is British because it is the people he have seen Parr photograph previously. Parr took away our ability to criticise the types of people he chose to photograph, and 38104815840forced us to look at the photographs themselves, and what they said about us.
Parr began to really develop this style of commenting on people, and social documentary photography that didn’t involve showing us who they are, or very much about them, but he manages to give us a close up of an item, or a piece of food, from which we can get all the information we need about all the people he photographs, without him showing us very much of them at all/ This removes the ability for his work to be critisied on the basis of the people he is photographic, rather than he work, his style and that ability of Parr as a photographer. For example in this picture we can’t even see the whole of the mans torso, yet we assume he is a large man, who holidays often, hense the red skin, and who we assume is on holiday somewhere hot because of him not wearing a top, the cross he is wearing sujests he is religous, however something about the photograph, perhaps the cheep-looking nature of the cross, makes us think that this is a religon he holds, but doesn’t nessacerily live by. We can tell all this from the close up photograph of a cross on a mans chest. It is here you have to realise Parr’s genious, he is pointing out the quirky, the different and the strange, with the use of bright bold colours that shook us and stand out, but he is doing this to make us feel a sense of nostalgia, and a sense of belonging to the country in which we live, along with all of the people in Parr’s photography.
Martin Parr began his photograph journey photographing bad weather, and dreary landscapes in black and white.
As a boy growing up in Surrey surrounded by the plain and the boring, he had started to document it, to show us the everyday. When Parr moved into colour, and started photographing the working class holidaymakers of New Brighton he faced heavy criticism from all angles saying that he was “a gratuitously cruel social critic who has made large amounts of money by sneering at the foibles and pretensions of other people.” It is easy to see in his work how this might be the case, and how it would be easy to say that Parr was simply sneering at the working classes, and making a lot of money for it, but he tried to explain it was Thatcherism he was knocking, and not working class Britain. In an attempt to prove this Parr decided to photograph the Middle-classes, the people from the same social stance he grew up in. But this only lead to more anger towards him, saying that he was simply mocking the British people. Parr began to remove the faces of the people from the photographs; he began focusing on the other things that made them who they are. He fought his way to become a member of Magnum, but this did little to help many people, particularly other photographers such as Henri Cartier-Bresson’s perception of him. When Parr published ‘Common Sense’ it was obvious he had found his niche, by commenting on people, and carrying out his social documentary, in such a way that
their class, and their nationality did not matter, it still made us reflect on ourselves and our communities and laugh, not at each other, but with each other about the ridiculousness of our own lives. When you study Martin Parr’s work, understanding his background, and which he was trying to achieve it is hard to argue that what he was doing was in anyway cruel or unkind to the people he was photographing. Martin Parr’s life and his personality cannot be separated from his work, they are one in the same, and that is why his work is so genius.
Bibliography
http://www.martinparr.com/MartinParrCV.pdfhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/bradford/going_out/exhibitions/martin_parr.shtmlBishop, B. (2005) Martin Parr’s true colours. Available at: http://www.parisvoice.com/photography/35-martin-parrs-true-colorshttp://www.magnumphotos.com/C.aspx?VP3=SearchResult&ALID=29YL53ALA_Fhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/3615454/Martin-Parr-is-acclaimed-for-his-brash-colour-satured-images-of-the-lives-and-foibles-of-regular-folk.-As-he-prepares-to-curate-the-prestigious-Arles-photography-festival-he-talks-to-Martin-Gayford-about-the-ambiguity-that-lies-beneath-his-work-Ordinary-lives-extraordinary-photographs.html#