often times in the 1960s-1970s. one doesn't need to "talk to ansel" to use his quotes
... people often say "ansel adams said a negative is the score an print is the performance"
why don't you have these sorts of comments for them too?
i agree noble, primitive optics, broken glasses &c that tichy used give an unfocused effect that hurt when you look at them.
i used to photograph unfocused or with primitive optics often and i stopped because i used to get eye-ache and headaches from
viewing the images. i get the same headache when i look at " brass-lens wide open images " or "landscape / portrait lens wide open" images.
tichy did the best he could with what he had, and i think that is what i find remarkable about his work. trained as a sculptor,
his photographs ( or at least some of them ) look like sculptures rather than people photographed ... the "hotness" and dark OOF backgrounds.
i would imagine if anyone here on apug tried to make photographs as he did, they would probably fail. he knew his materials and equipment
well enough to succeed where most would fail, and he created a body of work as well.
i have seen work by both the photographers you mentioned
( not the one from australia ) and while to a lot of people they are the epitome
of modern photography ... deadpan and posed portraits ...
they have never really done it for me. i know some people go nuts for this sort of stuff
as well as gurtsky and others in this new tradition
i find the work to be kind of mundane and oh humm ... kind of too staged and fake.
tichy's images have a surreal quality to them much like atget's work .
there isn't really much "to get" unlike the others mentioned where you have to read a treatise to "get it"
tichy to me is like the chuck bukowsky of czech photography ...
its too bad they don't make a feature film of him, his life, troubles and work. i'd pay to see it in a heartbeat.
( i have seen barfly, and private eye as well )