Of course not how could it be thought cruel? What I think can be cruel is to open people up for ridicule and some shots by Parr could be interpreted that way although I doubt he intends that. In fact I'm struggling to recall a single cruel shot on his web site which I looked at yesterday. Damn it I'm sounding like a fanboy. I can think of one recent LuLa post which did seem to verge on exposing two larger people to ridicule and to be honest I felt that was the whole basis of the shot. There are certainly many street shots that I have seen elsewhere (and of course now struggle to recall) that are nasty and mean spirited.
Forgive me if I suggest that some street shots seem to work on the basis of wow look at that - not the one you just posted but certainly some. But I stray into my own personal issues with lots of photography and art which seems to be based for its impact/success on presenting the extraordinary. I can dismiss whole genre at a sweep that way 
Mike
Mike, that has to be the most naïve comment I've read in many a month.
Are you, then, also suggesting that Parr is as naïve, has no idea of what he's doing to people either by his selection of moment, location, of focal length, by the inclusion of the effects of hard flash and the excessive colouring, and that his cruelty has not the slightest connection with the marketability of his
product? Heysoo!
If you do attempt to absolve him of such responsibility you are directly saying that he is incapable of knowing what he's doing with his cameras or where his technique is taking his 'work'. Thus, you brand him either ingenuous or idiot.
What you and his other apologists fail to understand is this: where the amateur is possibly doing it to test/please himself, Parr is doing it commercially, within the most 'respected' photo-agency in the world, whose sole interest in life is to pay the hills, generate income and, with luck, profit. If you fail to see that distinction of motive, then this post of mine is a waste of my time.
Rob C
