I saw an extensive exhibition at the Museum of Contemporary Art, Sydney. I didn't wear my anorak, whatever that is. As well as the prints were his cameras and enlarger, and--to repeat--I have a profound disbelief in any of them producing any image apart from a lightstruck piece of film. On show as well a video produced by his patron/discoverer/beneficiary.
Originally Posted by Gerald C Koch
Why? Why would a respectable major gallery allow curation of an exhibition by a photographer so inept, apart from the possibility that he was in vogue at the time in the airy realms of esoteric fine art posers encouraged by his ghost snapper (who I can't imagine would be unrewarded). It's the Emperor's New Clothes to me, I'm afraid.
I believe strongly in creative, purposeful "degradation" of the super perfect images that modern cameras produce BTW. This is not that, it's just sloppiness (and pervy into the bargain).
Tichy=Sudek? What an awful thing to suggest.