• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Miroslav Tichy --Why?

Agree Jmal,

Back when I was a child growing up in Moscow I saw Sudek's work...

A lot of time went by , I mean decades, and then I saw one of his half full glasses with small bubbles with light play in the water that just made you forget time and place , it brought that same feeling I had when I new nothing about photography or the artist. That work of art was just there without any explanation, without any story, without a need to know what it is it was supposed to be , no one had to write to explain it .

I am sorry, but if you have to know the story of an 82 year old man's life to appreciate his art then art has failed to me...

The story should be something you want to know after the work spoke to you and you want to know more , but if the story comes first before the art then sell a novel and not pictures.

One or two of Tichy's that I saw link's to here have an attempt to do so , but as a group ,like someone said ,the work fails to keep my attention independent from knowing his story.

One of the writers on line compared him to Van Gough in the way he was discovered , saying that this man is alive to enjoy his new found fame and that is the biggest difference between the two artists , I just could not believe what I was reading , when I was a kid and saw for the first time THE sunflowers , I had the same reaction I had to Sudek's light ... the work of Tychi just does not stir up the soul...



Ilya,

and this is just my old penny
 
Beautiful Tichy Collection for sale

Hi,
I have a beautiful collection of Miroslav Tichy photographs and drawings for sale.
Please do not hesitate to contact me on this forum for further info.
Best, Susan
 
Beautiful Tichy Collection for sale

Hi, I have just seen your entry from 2008!!! I am looking to sell a beautiful Tichy Collection - drawings and photographs, but there is also one of his camera's included. Maybe you can help. I see his camera is drawing your attention.
Pls let me know if I can provide more info.
Best. Susan

Steve Smith said:
Have you seen his home made camera?

http://img.radio.cz/pictures/c/foto/tichy_m/tichy.jpg



Steve.
Click to expand...
 
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.
 


beauty is a subjective thing .. just like art
one person's art is another man junk
and some wo/men people say are "utterly beautiful"
well, i don't have the same perspective i guess
 
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

I saw an extensive exhibition at the Museum of Contemporary Art, Sydney. I didn't wear my anorak, whatever that is. As well as the prints were his cameras and enlarger, and--to repeat--I have a profound disbelief in any of them producing any image apart from a lightstruck piece of film. On show as well a video produced by his patron/discoverer/beneficiary.

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).

Tichy=Sudek? What an awful thing to suggest.
 

I don't think anything of his pictures, but completely understand their new appeal. It's to do with the current anxiety about voyeurism and a new interest in naive art. In terms of the latter, the lack of intent in 'craft' is almost a prerequisite.

Pictures have to represent an idea, tap into the concerns of the time we live in and convey something beyond photography and have for a very long time now. Nu-Modernist concerns with mere light and form and making prints which counter-intuitively attempt to match or better digital images remains a conservative 'underground' niche. With the exception of Mitch Dobrovner, this type of new-classical photography very rarely 'breaks through'.

Here's a very important point from On Being a Photographer:


It's not enough to simply explore the medium anymore. If you're only interested in the medium of photography, you'll find that you're blind to a lot of important work made with a camera.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
When I said 'mere light and form' I meant that it is possible to have a photographic concern with these things, as well as an idea about what it is you're trying to convey through concentrating on particular subject matter. Art has always been about ideas, and photography in the art world is no different.
 
Ross Chambers said:
Why? Why would a respectable major gallery allow curation of an exhibition by a photographer so inept,
Click to expand...

Lisette Model once replied to criticism of her work, "Darling, if you think my prints are bad you should see my negatives."
 
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.
 


well said. perspective.
 
jnanian said:
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
Click to expand...

If life were indeed like that. But I don't think that some would change.

BTW I don't believe that I made Tichy's cameras objects of amusement, I just can't see, and I did see them in the flesh, how anyone could get any image with them. And what's with all the coating of ordure or whatever it is? Do beaten up cameras really look like that? Not in my local St. Vincent de Paul shop.
 
Very well put, Gerald - I could not agree more
 
Ross - how a camera looks from the outside rarely affect the magic that can come from it when used in the right way... much like people...
 
hi ross

a camera is just a dark space ... that's it.
i can see his home made cameras making images
on film or paper as negatives ...
a friend of mine made a pinhole camera out of his thanksgiving turkey one year
i don't think these cameras will make it to goodwill either
http://www.boyofblue.com/cameras.html

something made of paper or tin cans or cardboard doesn't seem too far fetched
 

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.
 

When one is testing film and developers you shoot resolution charts and other test images you do not do so by shooting Halfdome or other AA subjects. Without a standard to compare to your results would be meaningless. So while you are making "photographs" they are for technical not artistic purposes. I therefore find your comment rather pointless.

From the small amount of Tichy's work I have seen I am reserving any direct comment on it. The very fact that Tichy's work invokes an emotional response from you is an indication that his photographs are working at a certain level.

Some years ago there was a well known photo critic who wrote for one of the major photo magazines. His name was A D Coleman and he bragged that he had never taken a single photograph in his life. I therefore dismissed his comments on that basis. Those that can - do and those that can't - criticize. Should we consider those that spend all their time testing and none in creating as photographers or as mere technicians?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Noble said:
<snip>It is uncomfortable to look at.
Click to expand...

That's the point. Sometimes we need to be made to feel uncomfortable. It might not have been his original intent, he was probably fulfilling a personal fantasy - but the result of showing these pictures to the wider public has another effect on us is another matter, they make us feel uncomfortable, they make us feel like intruders, they make us ask questions. These women are inviting us into their lives. The imperfection brings an organic character to the pictures that is grubby and is not sterile. That's what it takes to produce this corpus of work, if that's what you want to call it. Everyone else would have been running around with an 8x10 and a light meter arguing about which zone to place the thighs in.
 
OK I guess I should just take it up the State funded Museum of Contemporary Art, Sydney and ask why they spent on this unproven, hyped up, hipster "artist" This was not a couple of prints, it was a major show.

After all they did exhibit an extensive show of William Eggleston jointly with lesser known NZ photographer Laurence Aberhart (who knocked the sox off Tichy's aberrations) and currently Jeff Wall. Must have been a senior moment when they took on Tichy, but he was probably a hot item in all those expensive art magazines they read.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register