Food photography for art is more manipulative than food photography for marketing. What i mean by this is that when the photography is for art it can be made to be whatever the photographer wants it to be while photography for marketing is more of a “by the book” type of photography. Art photography can be made to look ugly, messy, and beautiful all in the same shot. Food photography for marketing is more of the pretty flawless picture that we’re all mostly used to. We can all be food art photographers all you need is a phone with a decent camera, a social network like Instagram, Facebook, or twitter, a few bucks for lunch and voila! A lot of people take their food photography seriously and even make a living of it. Martin Parr was a realistic photographer when it came down to his food photography. A lot of people now a days are getting paid to make restaurants look good and to paint the pretty picture to bring it clientele. Absolutely nothing wrong with either. However because we’re used to everything being photographed without flaws and made to be seen as edible we tend to forget that nothing and no one is perfect. For example when we see a commercial for McDonald’s and see a cheeseburger that looks pretty darn good and when it comes down to it the item looks nothing like the picture of commercial. McDonald’s and other commercialized franchises do the exact same thing. Martin Parr shows the good, the bad, and the imperfect which more people should appreciate. I mean why wouldn’t you? Because it isn’t beautiful? There is beauty in everything. I do not prefer one or the other but a less manipulated and raw/uncensored approach would be more appreciated. Yes, i like my food to look nice and be presented lovely but if it looks perfect on a picture and not perfect on my plate you are selling me dreams! Be about it!