Well put.
At least the work is pushing boundaries, there's a husband and wife team in the US who's whole purpose is exquisitely printed mediocrity . . . . . .
Ian
tichy's images are like visual poetry.
not many people alive or dead are able
to do what he did with or without a camera ..
so to answer the title of this thread: miroslav tichy -- why?
i will say .. it is because he wanted to, and i would much rather look
at his work than grand landscapes or mundane streetscapes or other things.
i guess the real answer is: why not?
Or simply because he could. I agree with your sentiment here jnanian. This thread and another one about WW1 battlefield pinholes really surprises me. For a forum so full of people involved in an expressive medium, so many are so wrapped up in their anoraks to see the beauty.
There is an old saying, "One does not have to love the cow to like its milk." The composer Richard Wagner was from contemporary accounts a thoroughly disagreeable man yet he wrote some of the most sublime music ever written.
I would have to see more of Tichy's work before I could decide whether it is good or not.
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).
David Hurn: Many people are interested in photography in some nebulous way; they might be interested in the seemingly glamorous lives of top fashion or war photographers; or in the acquisition and admiration of beautiful, functional machines, the cameras; or in the arcane ritual of the darkroom processes; or in the persona which they could adopt if only they took pictures like . . . whoever. But these interests, no matter how personally enjoyable they might be, never lead to the person becoming a photographer. The reason is that photography is only a tool, a vehicle, for expressing or transmitting a passion in something else. It is not the end result.
Why? Why would a respectable major gallery allow curation of an exhibition by a photographer so inept,
People can fault his technique or make fun of his homemade cameras or even make fun of his appearance BUT the fact remains that he made photographs. Despite obvious hardship he has amassed a body of work that is distinctly his own. One that other people appreciate. How many on APUG can say the same for themselves. He did not waste his time in mindless testing of films or in the endless search for the perfect developer. He went out and mirabile dictu actually took pictures. I think there is a lesson here.
i think it is extremely funny ( and he did too ) what is being read into his photographs.
when art historians and gallerists read into things
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wWUc8BZgWE
People can fault his technique or make fun of his homemade cameras or even make fun of his appearance BUT the fact remains that he made photographs. Despite obvious hardship he has amassed a body of work that is distinctly his own. One that other people appreciate. How many on APUG can say the same for themselves. He did not waste his time in mindless testing of films or in the endless search for the perfect developer. He went out and mirabile dictu actually took pictures. I think there is a lesson here.
How does one test films and search for the perfect developer without taking pictures?
I think to imply someone who doesn't think much of this person's work doesn't have a collection of their own is a bit of a non sequitur. Not everyone is going to agree on every artist. What does that have to do with how productive they are as an artist?
As far as body of work is concerned the main constraint for most of us I believe is time (work/family constraints) and money (film ain't free). I don't think anyone has ever said I don't have many pictures because I've spent years testing films and searching for the perfect developer.
I don't like this guy's work at all. It hurts my eyes. It is uncomfortable to look at. If someone else wants to look at it that is their choice. That doesn't say anything about them or me as a photographer. I like Ansel Adams' work, but he seems like a internet favorite for using as a punching bag. There are far better photographers than me who have said Ansel doesn't do it for them. I argue with people about their opinions not their personal portfolio.
<snip>It is uncomfortable to look at.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?