Miroslav Tichy --Why?
This grubby old fart seems to have achieved some sort of late life fame (he's 82) with exhibitions currently in London, Paris (at the Pompidou) and here in Sydney (at the Biennale)
His prints are possibly the worst I've seen anywhere; rat chewed (literally -- he lives in squalor) every possible fault in the negatives, chemistry spotted, some subjects photographed from TV screens -- but the curators and galleries love him.
There may be a point, as made in "The Guardian" by Geoff Dyer, that (some) photographers are obsessed with new gear and perfection of technique, and my belief that popular music needed someone like The Sex Pistols -- whose primitive impact on art rock has perhaps some affinity to the critics' perception of Tichy, but that group of musos at least had the grace to fade away disgracefully, this junk merchant is le dernier cri.
What am I missing? Damnit I made a second 80 km trip for another look after reading Dyer's write up, and they just got worse!
There is a film running with the exhibition; one scene depicts Tichy urinating in the street, I know exactly how that footpath felt!
Regards - Ross
The "object" of art here is the obsession - not the photographs themselves. The photographs are merely pointers - they gesture towards that object. Precisely why I don't pretend to "get" contemporary art and confine myself to the renaissance. Less bullshit to put up with!
I think it's amazing that he managed to create a recognizable image with the crappy home made camera he's using. See this page for more info: http://photoshopnews.com/2006/04/24/...iroslav-tichy/
Although his tools are fascinating and the stories behind the images (and the person) interesting, that doesn't automatically qualify his photos as art, IMHO.
What is to be expected when the so-called "Art World" can hang a crucifix in a beaker of urine, give it a profane title I will not even repeat here, and then ooh and aah over the "breakthrough" that such "art" represents. Sadly, Tichy is merely indicative of Western cultural decline and decadence, IMHO. :(
Before you all tear him to bits lets see some images.
You can say what you like but post a link to his images first. !!!!!!!
This is the first time I've seen his work I believe.
Print-wise-from a technical perspective -I find his prints very poor. That being said, I find his 'work' otherworldly, unique, original, raw, stripped down and yet beautiful.
It's not representational photography, it's art derived from photographic means and materials.
I like Rothko and Luigi Nono too.
Actually something was posted here back in March: http://www.apug.org/forums/forum56/4...kfurt-mmk.html
I haven't seen them in person, but from what I've seen online, I don't have a problem with the (lack of) optical/print quality - it's kind of like "extreme Holga".
My issue with it is his obsession with photographing women, usually from a distance - it's very voyeuristic to me. Combine this with his appearance and documented "loner" lifestyle and habits, and he comes off as a stereotypical "creepy old man", leering at women. Maybe it's just my hang-up, projecting this onto him, but I can't get past it to see any potential artistic greatness.
I agree, he sure comes across to me as the creepy old man. Photos of women through chain link fences-yuck!
Originally Posted by mabman