When I first came from Europe to Canada, I was shocked (culturally shocked), to read in the formulary I had to fill the text: sex (with checkboxes for male and female). Than I said to myself: well, it seams the woman is here only a female, and the gender difference between humans is reduced only to the sex. Of course, the biggest difference is the sex, but this makes a standpoint just from a biological point of view, not from a bureaucratic (or even social) one. Otherwise, why would a man give his place to a woman in the subway or the tram? Because of her sex? Or because of her gender, with reference to a social status, granting her priority in front of him? There’s a big difference between sex and gender. There’s a big difference between males or females on one hand, and men or women on the other.
These being said, it is understandable that some people see Miroslav Tichy as obsessed with females, voyeurist, and pervert. For these people a woman is only a female – they get sexually excited when seeing a shoe or a knee. In this case, who is the pervert?
But there are also people who see in his photography the beauty of the woman (not the female). In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever seen more beautiful photographs of women as those made by Tichy. In the two treads, here on APUG, concerning this artist, there’s somebody saying that his photography is very humanistic, and I would say this APUG-er read in my mind.
Tichy’s photographs might have all sins, but three:
1) The composition (figurative and chromatic) is beautiful, even if made mostly by cropping and with primitive tools. It is an alternative photography, perfectly comparable in outputs with the alternative processing.
2) The photographer’s fully respect for his subjects, even when “stilling” images through fences and windows or when cropping legs, knees, and rears, it always emphasis the beauty, and only the beauty, in every single women he is shooting. Besides, he never shows parts of the woman’s body she doesn’t want to show. The majority of his pictures are taken in public areas, style street photography in a time and a place where it was no need for model releases. Otherwise said, in places where the subjects were voluntarily exposed their bodies, in a perfect decent manner. As for the cropped images, they remain decent as long they emphasis on the beauty (which they do), not on sexuality. In this respect, Miroslav Tichy is above many big names of the photography, who made their celebrity by deeply abusing their subjects: their ugliness, handicaps, illnesses, deaths, poverty, joy or despair.
3) And he does all this in the most humble manner possible. Some are saying it is fake because he printed on FB, not on cheaper RC. But let’s face it, in Czechoslovakia’s that time, there were no RC papers yet. It’s like saying that authentic African art is fake because it is made in wood, not in epoxy. Come on, smarties!
These being said, I am convinced that Miroslav Tichy is setting a landmark in the history of the photography: the beauty of the women gender in the 20s century.
Last edited by phenix; 08-06-2008 at 03:02 AM. Click to view previous post history.
B&W is silver.