I don't have any problem with his methods or his output (as far I can see). I mean it is what it is, take it or leave it. If you find it creepy and voyeuristic then the next guy will say that's the whole point. So I won't say that it is creepy and voyeuristic.

I do definitely wonder about the state of modern photography, though, if this is all it takes to be considered creative / original / eclectic / eccentric. I suppose that this whole primitive photography thing has to eventually rise in opposition to the digital culture of overprocessed perfection.