Glasweegeee's new series - Harrodsburg

[jjj]

Dougie Wallace AKA Glasweegee has moved on from cheap Blackpool to the far more upmarket location Knightsbridge in his series Harrodsburg.

Not everyone is a fan of his work.

[GrahamBy]

He has balls.

[Rob C]

Odd how the 'hate the rich' thing can't help rearing its envious head on LuLa.

Thank goodness some folks have the disposable income; how sad and more ugly a world sans Rolex, Ferrari, Riva etc. and how many more very skilled craftsmen would be out of work or left to repaint some effin' bridge from dusk until dawn. Oh, might as well ban Leica, too, not to mention beheading Lik.

I despair of this bloody world of hatreds.

Rob C

[Jimbo57]

How cruel - mocking the sub-humans like that.

But what superb photography.

[Manoli]

Martin Parr on Steroids.

Or more Bruce Gilden ?

[GrahamBy]

I'm all for mocking those who suppose to be our betters because they stole or inherited lots of money, it's the tradition of satire that goes way back (if I say Rabelais and Swift or even Chaucer, I'm sure someone with a classics education will trump me with an ancient Greek).

Referring to anyone as "sub-human" however, makes me very uncomfortable indeed.

[Rob C]

Good photography? I think it sucks. The only talent on display is a brass neck. But hell, soon he'll be rich too...

Rob C

[jjj]

Odd how the 'hate the rich' thing can't help rearing its envious head on LuLa.

Thank goodness some folks have the disposable income; how sad and more ugly a world sans Rolex, Ferrari, Riva etc. and how many more very skilled craftsmen would be out of work or left to repaint some effin' bridge from dusk until dawn. Oh, might as well ban Leica, too, not to mention beheading Lik.

I despair of this bloody world of hatreds.

Actually Rob, this is nothing to do with hating the rich.
Wallace's previous works include Hen + Stag nights at Blackpool and taxi drivers in India, subjects that are polar opposites of this recent work.

He's just documenting aspects of the human condition. Not all of it to my taste, but interesting none the less.

[GrahamBy]

Putting aside the moral/philosophical question, who would buy the prints? They're not flattering, so the subjects aren't going to want them (unless they get the negatives!) and I can't see myself wanting any of them on my wall.

[jjj]

Just because you don't like them, does not mean others do not.
His previous work ended up in book sand he gets exhibitions of his work and lots of attention.

I'd be surprised if many of the LuLa crowd liked them to be honest. The preference here is for traditional/pretty photographic work.
This is more fine art, which doesn't seem to go down so well.

[Rob C]

Actually Rob, this is nothing to do with hating the rich.
Wallace's previous works include Hen + Stag nights at Blackpool and taxi drivers in India, subjects that are polar opposites of this recent work.

He's just documenting aspects of the human condition. Not all of it to my taste, but interesting none the less.

http://www.bjp-online.com/2015/10/qatar-responds-to-dougie-wallaces-photographs-of-britains-wealth-tourism/

I repost your link.

Rob C

[Rob C]

Just because you don't like them, does not mean others do not.
His previous work ended up in book sand he gets exhibitions of his work and lots of attention.

I'd be surprised if many of the LuLa crowd liked them to be honest. The preference here is for traditional/pretty photographic work.
This is more fine art, which doesn't seem to go down so well.

I can't decide if that's a paradox or an oxymoron; however, as the 'work' is artless, in-your-face junk, I feel you're stretching the meaning of fine art a little far.

Rob C

[jjj]

I can't decide if that's a paradox or an oxymoron; however, as the 'work' is artless, in-your-face junk, I feel you're stretching the meaning of fine art a little far.

That's the kind of reaction I expect from most LuLa members when it comes to fine art. As I said above, such work is usually not to people's taste on here.

[Telecaster]

I'm not much of a Glasweegee fan…IMO his apparent contempt for his subjects is too blatant. Martin Parr, I think, negotiates the amusement-bemusement-disdain nexus more effectively.

Even better is Edward Burtynsky. Now much of his work is "landscape" but his aim is very different to most photographers working in that arena. His current book, Water, is a fine case-in-point. Striking, often quite beautiful, photos of…pollution. He just takes the photos & presents them, leaving it up to you to realize what they are and what you think—if anything—about the larger issues involved.

-Dave-

[drmike]

Seems to me that it is well above in your face junk. Many of them seem to have strong underlying composition which  underpins the in your face side. Personally I don't much like the very strident colours, the constant use of flash (at least I believe that's the case) but I do admire how in a twinkling he gets good composition as well as some social commentary or a comment on the human condition.

I can never understand how these guys decide when to press the button. A seemingly random shot is in fact quite carefully composed. I assume the flash frees him from worries over exposure.

I think his biggest weakness is that he is part of the image being so in their faces but he works well with it

Added later: No doubt this known to others but new to me http://www.ideastap.com/IdeasMag/the-knowledge/dougie-wallace-shoreditch-wild-life

[David Anderson]

What great in-your-face style, they're almost paparazzi in feel.
Well done.

[Rob C]

What great in-your-face style, they're almost paparazzi in feel.
Well done.

No, they are paparazzo in feel, and that's the trouble. Intrusive, designed to make the subjects victim. In fact, everything that makes me ever-doubtful about 'street'.

Rob C

[drmike]

The couple in the orange car are victims? They are revelling in the attention. http://www.dougiewallace.com/0f07pk7lx34xzyj22m7ii7yufm3eqx

This group shot which I think is wonderful - they're not victims http://www.dougiewallace.com/uhorue9hdpmhsib1pcpa68gcs228t7

But I do know what you mean some are might be seen in that way although I'm not sure just how much sympathy I have for some of them which I suppose is my character flaw.

[jjj]

No, they are paparazzo in feel, and that's the trouble. Intrusive, designed to make the subjects victim. In fact, everything that makes me ever-doubtful about 'street'.

Why would one photographer's work which is actually fairly atypical of street photography, make you doubtful about an entire genre?

[jjj]

The couple in the orange car are victims? They are revelling in the attention. http://www.dougiewallace.com/0f07pk7lx34xzyj22m7ii7yufm3eqx

This group shot which I think is wonderful - they're not victims http://www.dougiewallace.com/uhorue9hdpmhsib1pcpa68gcs228t7

But I do know what you mean some are might be seen in that way although I'm not sure just how much sympathy I have for some of them which I suppose is my character flaw.

I think what is actually most interesting about this particular project is that the subjects are very different from the usual ones. Usually it's the poor and disadvantaged that are featured, rarely does anyone complain those people are being taken advantage of.