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.