If you're inspired by Tichy, great. To me, they look like mostly ratty prints made without care for the guy's own sexual gratification. I don't think any irony, commentary or metaphor is intended. Was it here that someone posted about a guy photographing women's hands and feet with his cell phone? I'm not sure I see much difference. I remember going with a friend to look over photographica at an estate and while we were sorting through everything we found an enormous collection of photos of snowflakes and vaginas. That was the deceased owner's oeuvre--snowflakes and vaginas. He'd built a special apparatus to photograph the snowflakes and although the prints were interesting, they were carelessly printed from filthy negatives. The same for the vaginas. I think the photographer had a scientific interest and a sexual interest, but the photos were artless.
A creative curator could have probably done a show, and maybe that's enough to create art. I went to a show called The Art of the American Snaphot at the National Gallery of Art and it was comprised of random snapshots over 100 years of photography and I was really impressed with many of the photos. I honestly though there were a lot of great images, but I wonder how my perception was colored by the fact that the show was at the NGA. Context counts for a lot.
I'm lukewarm on Minor White, but equating his work with a grubby grainy photo of "junk in the trunk"? At least I wouldn't be afraid to handle a Minor White print without a tongs. :) I mean it looks....damp.
Yeah, I think that's a pretty good analysis. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. I'd like to see it in person and see if my perception is different.
Originally Posted by Moopheus
Originally Posted by sun of sand
I don't see it as junk in the trunk ass oddity that photo at all
The woman isn't even the most important aspect to that photo IMO
It's just an elder -looking -middle-aged woman set against a building and a car but for me it's fantastic.
I don't even see her ass
Eh? explain myself?
The composition is wonderful. It's like a robert motherwell.
Yes, but so what? A special apparatus to photograph snowflakes? Now that's the kind of insane obsessiveness I can relate to. Sure, they may be artless, but that's a limitation of art, not of the photography. If you're only looking for "art," you're probably going to miss a lot of interesting things.
Originally Posted by Barry S
Mr Roman Buxbaum does appear very often as the discoverer, rescuer and promoter of Tichy.
Originally Posted by Barry S
BTW the prints on display at the Museum of Contemporary Art in Sydney appear, as best as can be ascertained behind glass, to be on fibre based paper (they have the characteristic curl, albeit slight), so he's not that naive, or perhaps the rats ate all the resin coated ones.
BTW whoever mentioned him in the same sentence as Sudek will please wash their mouth out! :)
When I first came from Europe to Canada, I was shocked (culturally shocked), to read in the formulary I had to fill the text: sex (with checkboxes for male and female). Than I said to myself: well, it seams the woman is here only a female, and the gender difference between humans is reduced only to the sex. Of course, the biggest difference is the sex, but this makes a standpoint just from a biological point of view, not from a bureaucratic (or even social) one. Otherwise, why would a man give his place to a woman in the subway or the tram? Because of her sex? Or because of her gender, with reference to a social status, granting her priority in front of him? There’s a big difference between sex and gender. There’s a big difference between males or females on one hand, and men or women on the other.
These being said, it is understandable that some people see Miroslav Tichy as obsessed with females, voyeurist, and pervert. For these people a woman is only a female – they get sexually excited when seeing a shoe or a knee. In this case, who is the pervert?
But there are also people who see in his photography the beauty of the woman (not the female). In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever seen more beautiful photographs of women as those made by Tichy. In the two treads, here on APUG, concerning this artist, there’s somebody saying that his photography is very humanistic, and I would say this APUG-er read in my mind.
Tichy’s photographs might have all sins, but three:
1) The composition (figurative and chromatic) is beautiful, even if made mostly by cropping and with primitive tools. It is an alternative photography, perfectly comparable in outputs with the alternative processing.
2) The photographer’s fully respect for his subjects, even when “stilling” images through fences and windows or when cropping legs, knees, and rears, it always emphasis the beauty, and only the beauty, in every single women he is shooting. Besides, he never shows parts of the woman’s body she doesn’t want to show. The majority of his pictures are taken in public areas, style street photography in a time and a place where it was no need for model releases. Otherwise said, in places where the subjects were voluntarily exposed their bodies, in a perfect decent manner. As for the cropped images, they remain decent as long they emphasis on the beauty (which they do), not on sexuality. In this respect, Miroslav Tichy is above many big names of the photography, who made their celebrity by deeply abusing their subjects: their ugliness, handicaps, illnesses, deaths, poverty, joy or despair.
3) And he does all this in the most humble manner possible. Some are saying it is fake because he printed on FB, not on cheaper RC. But let’s face it, in Czechoslovakia’s that time, there were no RC papers yet. It’s like saying that authentic African art is fake because it is made in wood, not in epoxy. Come on, smarties!
These being said, I am convinced that Miroslav Tichy is setting a landmark in the history of the photography: the beauty of the women gender in the 20s century.
Just wanted to add two observations:
1) Did you people see how Tichy crops the image when emphasizing a woman’s body part? He does it like a sculptor, not like a pornographer.
2) While he did shoot women only in his hometown, the occurring images tend to reveal a universal value. And that could better explain (than the novelty) why he is exhibited allover the world.
I simply don't see how MW was invoked. I see no connection, to be honest. The subject matter and the capture and print techniques seem entirely unrelated.
Originally Posted by sun of sand
And now I don't see how Motherwell was invoked either, his work is far more calligraphic and abstract, in my estimation. :confused:
Why don't we compare Tichy to Winogrand? :rolleyes: I mean, if you are going to compare totally different things then you're going to have to help us simpletons out a bit.... connect some dots...
I like the show that paired him with Julia Margaret Cameron. Both were working with unpredictable materials while developing an original voice that exalts the beauty in nature to create beautiful, new work in spite of the technical glitches.
I really wonder how much of this criticism is about him and how much is about his work. If he were a she and taught at a big art school, in NYC or Paris, would he really be so creepy?