Miroslav Tichý

[Dave_B]

It was a nice Sunday in NYC and we went to the International Center of Photography. There were a number of interesting exhibits there but the one that got my attention was by Miroslav Tichý. All the gear heads on this forum (myself included) should see the cameras and other stuff he used to take pictures. To call his equipment junk gives junk a bad name. As an example, he took pieces of plastic and polished lenses out of it using toothpaste. Yet despite the fact that he used trash to assemble cameras that he then used to take street photos, he made some arresting shots. The movie about him and his art is pretty amazing. I recommend the ICP to anyone who finds themselves in NYC.
Cheers,
Dave B.

[Ash]

Seen a lot about him over the past few years. By a lot I mean the same stuff over and over.

Kinda cool but I'm not sure if he's just a creation of an elitist art group to make them seem like they really think outside the box.

[Kirk Gittings]

His work seems like all technique (the cult of minimal technique that is) and no vision to me.

[Jay DeFehr]

I find Tichy very interesting. Not just Tichy the person, or Tichy the artist, but Tichy the phenomenon. There are so many layers to consider, and each seems to contradict the next, and to swing the pendulum of validity one way or the other. I suspect Tichy is like most of us, and there is no one, true Tichy, but instead a complex personality with a varied history and a unique perspective based on his cumulative experience. Tichy is interesting because whether we admire him, or his work, or we don't, Tichy doesn't make it easy or simple for us to feel one way or the other about him, or his work. I'm not at all surprised he makes some photographers uncomfortable, and I'm not surprised his work resonates with some other photographers. Whatever one thinks or feels about Tichy's photos, one should admit they're intensely and obsessively personal, and our projections are our own.

[Kirk Gittings]

Whatever one thinks or feels about Tichy's photos, one should admit they're intensely and obsessively personal, and our projections are our own.

This amounts to saying something totally obvious though, because all art work is intensively personal and all our projections are always are own. So what?

[Jay DeFehr]

I wish I could say that all my work is intensely personal, but it's not. Some of it is done for a variety of reasons that make it less than so. I meant to say that Tichy forces us to confront our projections in ways that can be uncomfortable. I'm not an art critic, or a psychologist or sociologist, or any kind of ologist, so please take my comments in the spirit in which they were intended; as the observations of a photographer who wants to do meaningful work, and to understand the works of other photographers. I often fall short on both counts.

[CarstenW]

Kirk, all work may be personal in some sense, but it isn't all intense. For example, while I like the genre, there is hardly anything personal left in 99% of photos in the "Great American Landscape" genre, and just a very few people who are really following a different path. Another example of someone who manages to create his very own feeling is Michael Ackermann. You may not like his work, but you will never mistake it for the work of another mini-Ansel.

[csant]

This amounts to saying something totally obvious though, because all art work is intensively personal and all our projections are always are own. So what?

Kirk, I guess that was the point - it is art work, in the most intense meaning of that concept. Whether one likes this work or not, is irrelevant. (I find it very inspiring and am very much attracted to what he does, just to find out each time I get closer that it deeply disappoints me, over and over again, each time the same way).

[jb7]

I'd have to agree with the comments of the people who find the work interesting,
rather than those who would prefer to diminish and dismiss it, or reduce it to an invention of a coterie of curators.

If it is true that he ground his own optics from plastic,
in addition to creating very beautiful and sculptural machines in which to expose film,
then I just can't see how it could be dismissed as an example of "cult of minimal technique".

I did google that phrase, it appears once, on this page, so I presume we can refer to Tichý as being the founder-
if we can agree that making your own cameras, and grinding your own lenses,
to produce very specific pictures, constitutes an example of 'minimal technique'.

I'd also agree wholeheartedly with Carsten's point-
although all comment is more likely to expose our own prejudice than provide illumination, unfortunately-

[GPS]

...
Yet despite the fact that he used trash to assemble cameras that he then used to take street photos, he made some arresting shots. The movie about him and his art is pretty amazing. I recommend the ICP to anyone who finds themselves in NYC.
Cheers,
Dave B.

"De gustibus et coloribus non est disputandum" :)
What I admire on his photography is the fact that he tries to catch the "fleeting" in a genial way - even when caught in his pictures, it is still that - the "fleeting"...:)

[Michael Alpert]

His work seems like all technique (the cult of minimal technique that is) and no vision to me.

Kirk,

I am by disposition prone to admire Czech photographers, so I am amazed that I agree with you. I don't see these images as visionary at all, even using other Czech photographers to try to find an aesthetic baseline. Karen Rosenberg's New York Times review of the current show ends with "the photographs’ uncanny fusion of eroticism, paranoia and deliberation." I am not sure what she means by "deliberation" (I would say the lack of deliberation is closer to the intent), but "eroticism" and "paranoia" do not equal vision. The images look like snapshot culture in a carefully weathered form. They don't even explore the tension between imagery and technique that has been historically important to photography as an artform.

The article links Tichy's photographs with Gerhard Richter's paintings, which shows that anything can be linked with anything. Richter's work is nothing if not deliberate, seldom erotic (except in the most general sense of that term), and not terribly paranoid (taking into account the psychological standards that emerged in East Germany during Richter's formative years).

On one of the website's that I viewed, Tichy is quoted as follows" "Photography is painting with light! The blurs, the spots, those are errors! But the errors are part of it, they give it poetry and turn it into painting. And for that you need as bad a camera as possible! If you want to be famous, you have to do whatever you're doing worse than anyone else in the whole world."

So Tichy clearly had fame in mind; and amazingly, in a world that is starved for anything that looks (or smells) handmade, he found a backdoor way to reach his goal. I think anyone who is interested in this half-baked stuff should look to Josef Sudek for corrective help. Sudek was an talented artist, not a simple-minded servant of unglitzy giltz.

[walter23]

If it is true that he ground his own optics from plastic,
in addition to creating very beautiful and sculptural machines in which to expose film,
then I just can't see how it could be dismissed as an example of "cult of minimal technique".

I agree, there's a compelling aesthetic to the whole package; man, cameras, technique, and final prints. I think that's where the genius lies.

I could cobble together a piece of sh*t camera out of strings and leather, as could many of us, but they wouldn't have that thick grime that he managed. They wouldn't be the same.

As an aside, reading some of the varied responses to someone like Tichy I can't help but feel reinforced in my belief that a lot of art critique is just relatively meaningless verbal justification for subjective emotional responses to things. You really either like something or you don't, the rest is mostly just noise. Sure, there's value in dissecting someone's technique and talking about aesthetics, don't get me wrong, but when a controversial artist like this comes up - you really either like him or you don't, and that's the basis for how you frame the rest of the discussion.

[sun of sand]

I think people would be much better off looking at his photographs as JUST compositions
I still believe he is either slightly influenced by Robert Motherwell
Another expressionist
Or its his own original style that fits well alongisde

First page of google images on Motherwell

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=motherwell#focal=bdb0831fc124d49df4c8bf71e9d10234&furl=http://artblog.net/publications/2005/12/basel/images/motherwell.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_OoOqVKryIy4/Rp6AKGy6XTI/AAAAAAAAAX4/D8ZiHawtFwA/s400/motherwell1.jpg
http://www.boisseree.com/images/artists/Motherwell/Motherwell_B_318.jpg

Tichy
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=miroslav+tichy#focal=599b316172892ab1b58ed5600f64279b&furl=http://sarahwichlacz.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2006/05/tichy_4_1.jpg
http://www.arttattler.com/images/Europe/Sweden/Stockholm/Magasin%203/Tichy%20and%20Cameron/4-3-032_1.jpg
http://www.arteinformado.com/documentos/eventos/26987/Miroslav_Tichy,_MT_Inv_Nr_1-30.jpg
http://img1.gtimg.com/digi/pics/21663/21663197.jpg
http://img1.gtimg.com/digi/pics/21663/21663198.jpg
http://img1.gtimg.com/digi/pics/21663/21663200.jpg
http://www.clubcultura.com/php_lib/imagen.php?arc_id=18454
http://expo.weblog.ro/usercontent/4/4850/ingres/untitled5.jpg
http://www.kwasi-ich.de/photos/paris/img/090.jpeg
http://artnews.org/miroslavtichy/?s=2&i=13
http://artnews.org/miroslavtichy/?s=2&i=13
http://artnews.org/miroslavtichy/?s=2&i=17
http://artnews.org/miroslavtichy/?s=2&i=22

straight compositions
great balance and textures
things motherwell and countless others use daily in their paintings but are sometimes unavailable in a clean society
the blobs, lightleaks, scratches, scribbling are all his methods for introducing texture and "happy accidents"
I do not believe they're all unintended "consequences"

I think it's impossible to look a photo like
http://artnews.org/miroslavtichy/?s=2&i=16
and say
"here is a guy uncaring of composition"

a great photo? Not in my opinion
but some of his other compositions I believe are
Great compositions ..perhaps great photographs some of em

He likes girls in panties
true ..who doesn't?
Sometimes
Often times
I believe the surroundings are JUST as important as the girl
That if the composition isn't right he may not take the photo

You see severel common "motifs" throughout his work
chain link fence/netting grid patterns
vertical lines
"random" elements being allowed into the frame that mimic elements of the main subject ..car headlights/front ends, bent elbows etc
The one woman sitting with a black circle in the frame away from her and shoes jutting in bottom left to cut off torso from legs making separate, distinct elements

Some are perversions but
who knows
maybe those are the outtakes that didn't work well as compositions that curators believe can sell a body of "erotic" work

In a youtube clip he says himself he doesn't care that he is now becoming famous
"So Tichy clearly had fame in mind"
c'mon, man

Perhaps
maybe not
People don't usually spend an entire life devoted to something without a desire to become proficient at it
with proficiency sometimes comes fame

The dude is 80 and was relatively unknown till recently
C'mon
he wasn't doing this hoping to one day become a known name at the END of his life

[Jay DeFehr]

Tichy seems to me, a man driven to create something beautiful from his environment and personal experience.

[Michael Alpert]

As an aside, reading some of the varied responses to someone like Tichy I can't help but feel reinforced in my belief that a lot of art critique is just relatively meaningless verbal justification for subjective emotional responses to things. You really either like something or you don't, the rest is mostly just noise. Sure, there's value in dissecting someone's technique and talking about aesthetics, don't get me wrong, but when a controversial artist like this comes up - you really either like him or you don't, and that's the basis for how you frame the rest of the discussion.

Walter,

That's quite an aside. To say "I like what I like" (and "I don't like what I don't like") is an approach that denies historical and cultural realities. (Your hedge about technique and aesthetics changes nothing.) Perhaps you "like what you like" because you have been heavily influenced by pervasive cultural forces that you have fully internalized. This emphatically includes the cultural force that has led you to believe that your opinion is autonomous. I don't think you are stupid, so I guess you are simply not being very reflective in your expression. Opinions that exist on the level of "I like what I like" are shallow, especially when applied to an off-beat artist. Tichy's work exists in a cultural pattern that is specifically Eastern European. To restrict your perception of his work to some sort of nebulous idea ("frame") of "controversial art" is not to see his work at all. Even in our narcissistic age, art remains primarily about the artist, not primarily about the viewer. To judge Tichy's photographs apart from his context is to diminish his art and your opinion.

[csant]

Sure in the end you just either like something, or you don't - that's a very deep response somebody has to a work of art. But then, in reality, things aren't that simple - you can dislike something, yet something about it captures your attention and fantasy… Or you like something, but every time you get a bit closer it deeply disappoints you, so you turn away - and again you cannot but be drawn to it… There are many shades of complex responses to art, and trying to understand those might be what produces a critical response to a work of art. Sure in the end you just like it, or you don't - but we are, as human beings, way more complex than that, and both your internal response to art, your cultural knowledge and interests, your cognition of history and its relations… all contribute to a very multifaceted reaction. Being able to articulate that reaction is not a gift for all.

[GPS]

...
Tichy's work exists in a cultural pattern that is specifically Eastern European.
...

Well, have a look at a map, to see that the Czech republic is not situated in the Eastern Europe... Exactly the same was said the last time there was a post about this photographer from - ehm...the Central Europe...;)

[Robert Hughes]

Language lawyering. Czechoslovakia was part of the Soviet Empire, which was, in the view of the West ... East.

[sun of sand]

why don't we hear a critique or whatever of WHY his work fails to reach any level of competency

the reasoning behind/meaning/definiton of these

lack of deliberation
vision
snapshot culture
tension between imagery and technique
half-baked


you have been heavily influenced by pervasive cultural forces that you have fully internalized
so this would lead me to believe that everyone likes the same basic stuff
no need to understand why if everyone is in agreement
so shallowness works just fine
yet you don't care for his work
this creates controversy
I don't think Walter said Tichy works to BE controversial
You seem to believe he does exactly that


So Tichy clearly had fame in mind
I've already made this a draw at best
maybe he does
maybe he never intended to become famous
I mean ..how do you really set out to become famous
You have to have real goals that can lead to becoming famous

cultural pattern that is specifically Eastern European

I don't even know what this means or why it has meaning
I aint never been to eastern europe or russia and I still appreciate some of his work
I don't care where he lives
?
I don't exist in slovakia or wherever his art exists


is not to see his work at all

I thought you were the one who just panned him hard calling him a
simple-minded servant


Even in our narcissistic age, art remains primarily about the artist, not primarily about the viewer

I don't know what this is saying, either
shouldn't it be about the art?


Being able to articulate that reaction is not a gift for all
Articulate it

It really sounds like youre saying you have to be a know it all about everything that has existed
before you have any insight into what makes something new worthy or not
But that fails all the time
It's really JUST a guessing game, isn't it?
Informed, educated guesses
sometimes those guesses are dead wrong though

multifaceted reaction
:rolleyes:
Sorry
Very suspect
sounds like the workings of shrewd businessmen
and shrewd as in
inclined to deal with others in a clever underhanded way

[sun of sand]

Im just going to ask this

Do you think Tichy photographs women
Do you think Tichy tries to photograph women within compositions

[sun of sand]

http://artnews.org/miroslavtichy/?s=2&i=16

A photo of a nice ass ..the one with chick laid out on a towel next to someone else

But couldn't he have taken it at any time

why wait till that very gesture

[sun of sand]

I stumbled onto this guy somehow
probably someone tried to connect tichy with him so I looked him up

http://www.phillipsdepury.com/auctions/lot-detail.aspx?sn=UK040109&search=&p=5&order=&lotnum=54
Def NSFW photos
I'd bet people would consider this guy to be an artist
why?
where is the art?


I cant even find many photographs of his
Wolfgang Tillmans
Winning awards and the prize of the shock and awe crowd

http://www.likeyou.com/files/fullimages/h_t_tillmans_l.jpg
that's a nice one
thats a composition more than it is a "portrait of man cutting toenails"


http://www.julib.com/images/augustpicksch06.jpg
as much a composition as it is a portrait
That chair is vital as is the shades of the walls and the corner line and the yellow sign the guy wears
the hands/fingers on the white dress create a bit of "painterly texture" too

[walter23]

I just think there's absolutely nothing to be gained from arguing in order to *categorize* something as valid art or not, because there are no such categories. That was probably what I really should have said.

Of course the subjective experience of enjoying something (or hating it) has a lot of basis in one's own background... but even armed with equally extensive knowledge of art-history or whatever, two people will never necessarily agree to like something. Though of course context gives you a richer understanding of something (is it cliché? a copy? a novel reinterpretation of something? a reference? how does it connect?).

To state the freakin' obvious ;)

But yeah, I was a bit too flippant there. Of course this kind of discussion has value, and I like hearing the opinions of others (and in fact, especially the opinions of those who have more background than me) on art.





That's quite an aside. To say "I like what I like" (and "I don't like what I don't like") is an approach that denies historical and cultural realities. (Your hedge about technique and aesthetics changes nothing.) Perhaps you "like what you like" because you have been heavily influenced by pervasive cultural forces that you have fully internalized. This emphatically includes the cultural force that has led you to believe that your opinion is autonomous. I don't think you are stupid, so I guess you are simply not being very reflective in your expression. Opinions that exist on the level of "I like what I like" are shallow, especially when applied to an off-beat artist. Tichy's work exists in a cultural pattern that is specifically Eastern European. To restrict your perception of his work to some sort of nebulous idea ("frame") of "controversial art" is not to see his work at all. Even in our narcissistic age, art remains primarily about the artist, not primarily about the viewer. To judge Tichy's photographs apart from his context is to diminish his art and your opinion.

[Jay DeFehr]

How do you gentlemen feel Tichy's work is related (if at all) to the Lo-Fi photo culture, in general? Many people are attracted to the "Holga look" of toy cameras, and "Lomography". How (if at all) are images made with soft focus, antique, and home made lenses related? What about intentionally grainy images? What about photos printed by processes that produce low resolution, like Bromoil? Why do you think some photographers intentionally choose equipment, materials, or techniques that technically degrade their images, in one or more characteristics, relative to other options?
It seems to me, if we can agree that any single characteristic can be intentionally "degraded" at the artist's discretion, without invalidating the work as a whole, then it must hold true for ALL characteristics. If this is true, isn't Tichy's approach just the opposite of the f64 group/Ansel Adams, etc? Wasn't the f64 group formed in direct opposition to the pictorialists who were, considered the artistic standard bearers of the photographic arts? In other words; if one artistic approach is valid, isn't it's opposite also valid, by definition?

Thanks for the stimulating discussion.

[theBDT]

I come from a digital background; part of the appeal of large format to me, personally, is how razor sharp it can be. I will admit, though, that my professor has turned me on to out-of-focus/bokeh effects on the edge of the subject...

I went through a Holga phase, and while it was neat, I feel as though I've moved beyond it. That's just *my* aesthetic, though—someone, quite possibly more talented than I, may still be inspired by it. As someone intimated in another thread, the Petzval revival/craze on these boards seems to be the LF response to the Holga dynamic.

So, I don't really "get" Tichy. I sympathize with people who dismiss him, but am not as quick to dismiss him myself. Ultimately, art is about touching the audience; if Tichy has touched people, then he has made art.

But don't let me discourage those who speak out against him, either. Taking a strong point of view in art equates to being a driving force; if someone's rant against Tichy can inspire another to go forth and make distinctly anti-Tichy art, then hey that's cool too. I personally find the f/64 "manifestos" inspiring. Then again, nostalgia for Modernism is popular with my age group; it's kind of like how everyone is bored w/ their parents and grows interested in what their grandparents liked. Art, like all human activity, moves in untidy cycles. :)

[Robert Hughes]

This is looking like a rehash of the Pictorialist/F64 debate. I like both. :)

[Jay DeFehr]

I'm not advocating either the f64 aesthetic, or the Lo-Fi, but suggesting there are reasons for each, and they're equally valid. I suspect some of the posters here believe it would be easier to make images like Tichy's than A.A.'s, but I'm not convinced that's true, either technically or artistically. Making a "properly" exposed/ focused image of Half Dome is not technically demanding, the proof of which is in the thousands or millions of photos that fit the description, but making one that equals or surpasses Adams' is not so easily done, and I would bet the same is true of Tichy's images.

[Michael Alpert]

After some of the responses here, I hesitate to add fuel to the flames; but there are some issues suggested by Tichy's work that might be of interest to the forum:

It seems to me that Tichy's photographs would have no more (and no less) artistic merit if he had used ordinary photographic equipment. The collective work would still consists of photographs depicting the same subjects in the same way. Perhaps for reasons of stealth Tichy would have needed to camouflage his ordinary camera in a cardboard camera-shaped box, but the photographs would be equal in their realization to what he produced with his junk cameras. I am not suggesting that the resulting photographic prints would be exactly the same, only that they would be equivalent in their artistic presence. Do you agree ?

[theBDT]

It seems to me that Tichy's photographs would have no more (and no less) artistic merit if he had used ordinary photographic equipment. ... I am not suggesting that the resulting photographic prints would be exactly the same, only that they would be equivalent in their artistic presence. Do you agree ?

I agree completely. If we are to evaluate his work as a photographer, then what camera he used is mostly irrelevant. If we are to evaluate his work as a performance-artist-sculptor, then his weird camera creations are key to who he is as an artist. I, personally, am not that interested in his cameras-as-sculptures; I've seen heavy-metal-inspired large format cameras that scratch that itch for me much more effectively. As far as I am concerned, what interests me about him (if anything does) is his work as a photographer, working within the lo-fi genre.

[walter23]

It seems to me that Tichy's photographs would have no more (and no less) artistic merit if he had used ordinary photographic equipment. The collective work would still consists of photographs depicting the same subjects in the same way. Perhaps for reasons of stealth Tichy would have needed to camouflage his ordinary camera in a cardboard camera-shaped box, but the photographs would be equal in their realization to what he produced with his junk cameras. I am not suggesting that the resulting photographic prints would be exactly the same, only that they would be equivalent in their artistic presence. Do you agree ?

I think in some ways Tichy himself, and his methods, are part of the "art". I mean part of the reason people like the images is because of the odd aesthetic of the process itself; this strange guy with the beard who wears home-stitched rags and shoots with cardboard and scrap leather junk cameras, then mounts his images on scraps of paper picked out of garbage cans.

If all you care about is the final image, then we're considering different issues. But the man and his methods are part of the whole, erm, picture.

[Maris Rusis]

Perhaps these pictures are not intended as a source of visual epiphany. Instead they could stand as certificates of artistic performance; that the great deed has been done and the great thought thunk.

[sun of sand]

To me the characteristic look of the prints is not what makes Tichy an artist
Some would say his art would be diminished if presented cleanly

so the look of the print is important to some people
the look may even take precedent for those viewers


I cannot agree with that then

same subjects in the same way
yes
they would be equivalent in their artistic presence
no

to me however he would still be just as good an eye as he were
I do think he has a good eye for composition ..complex composition
he's a painter with a camera and I believe many just cannot accept that you can be both at the same time
As Soth said in that interview "people often take photographs of what they've been led to believe make good photographs"
I think people like simple compositions much more than complex ones
I see many simple photos as being snapshots in artsy disguise



Why is it that people can accept photos of road markings as abstracts but these are merely pictures of women

[sun of sand]

visual epiphany
what is visual epiphany

Instead they could stand as certificates of artistic performance; that the great deed has been done and the great thought thunk

I'm not of that vocabulary so it just seems like random words poetically arranged
can you clarify it for me

[sun of sand]

The truth of the matter is that he has never bothered about an audience, an exhibition, a publication. To him none of that seemed worth striving for. The world was anyway a mere appearance, an illusion. And everybody recognizes only what they want to, he repeatedly maintains

2nd person but still not hearing anywhere that fame was his purpose

[sun of sand]

http://www.photography-now.com/artists/popup/B009364.html

I think this is one of his more artistic photos
not saying it's a fabulous one but I see the perforated chair, turned head and segmenting of her body and lower chair whatever
it's not about the semi-nude woman at all imo

I think if you were to paint it it would be seen as having been produced by a skilled/talented artist

http://www.neoteo.com/Portals/0/imagenes/cache/45D3x1024y768.jpg
upper left mostly
what is that mondrian? lol very well balanced and
again
not about the attractive woman but how she and her dress fits into the composition
striped shirt
you cant tell me the striped shirt against all these blocks isn't what interested him


http://www.burgercollection.org/.imaging/gen-size-showbox/website/home/works/work1331/images/0.jpg
a guy ..with bare legs and
frankly, panty-like shorts

I think he uses bare legs as he would a solid block of color on canvas


http://www.burgercollection.org/.imaging/gen-size-showbox/website/home/works/work1326/images/0.jpg

a landscape
full of strong lines turning rather abstract

http://www.burgercollection.org/.imaging/gen-size-showbox/website/home/works/work1314/images/0.jpg
a true abstract photograph using womens garments
pretty strong
reminds me of some other artist ..the socks especially
thinking I was taking a combination of baziotes and miro

[Jay DeFehr]

After some of the responses here, I hesitate to add fuel to the flames; but there are some issues suggested by Tichy's work that might be of interest to the forum:

It seems to me that Tichy's photographs would have no more (and no less) artistic merit if he had used ordinary photographic equipment. The collective work would still consists of photographs depicting the same subjects in the same way. Perhaps for reasons of stealth Tichy would have needed to camouflage his ordinary camera in a cardboard camera-shaped box, but the photographs would be equal in their realization to what he produced with his junk cameras. I am not suggesting that the resulting photographic prints would be exactly the same, only that they would be equivalent in their artistic presence. Do you agree ?

I disagree. Tichy's cameras made their mark on his work to at least the same extent that Ansel Adams' cameras marked his. Could Adams have made his images with a Holga? Sure, after a fashion, but they wouldn't resemble the work he did with LF view cameras, or even MF SLRs.

[Mike Anderson]

After some of the responses here, I hesitate to add fuel to the flames; but there are some issues suggested by Tichy's work that might be of interest to the forum:

It seems to me that Tichy's photographs would have no more (and no less) artistic merit if he had used ordinary photographic equipment. The collective work would still consists of photographs depicting the same subjects in the same way. Perhaps for reasons of stealth Tichy would have needed to camouflage his ordinary camera in a cardboard camera-shaped box, but the photographs would be equal in their realization to what he produced with his junk cameras. I am not suggesting that the resulting photographic prints would be exactly the same, only that they would be equivalent in their artistic presence. Do you agree ?

Disagree. The choice to use such "distinctive" cameras, and the ensuing lo-fi (or whatever you call it) effect results in a completely different experience than an identical image without the effect. Different choices, different experiences, different reactions - how could the artistic merit be equal?

Was that a trick question?

...Mike

[Merg Ross]

Tichy was obviously influenced by the work of painters, and some of his own paintings are quite good. That may be where his talent is, for he surely did not make the transition to the medium of photography with the same eye that is present in his paintings.

I have seen innumerable old photographs in thrift shops that conveyed much more emotion than anything present in his work. This is not only about technique, it is also about message. He has failed in both, and has succeeded in producing work that will keep the great critics of photography employed. They should be grateful, and will likely give his work, and such like it, great play.

[sun of sand]

who says there has to be emotion? What kind of emotion are we looking for?
I mentioned mondrian
Hard to get emotional over paintings of cubes and lines and whatnot
Yet he's a master
Lots of dollar store artwork can be pretty yet still be worthless with a dollar seemingly being too steep
message
what kind of message
I keep hearing words without any detail or definition or example
Vision? What sort of vision are we needing to see?
No vision
How, why ..
What isn't there?
If he has no vision it should be easy to express what is vision
if not, it's bunk
aesthetic baseline?
That's like saying all artists have something in common and if one don't fit the bill he aint one
that obviously goes against what art is in the first place
historically important
goes against art as well
lack of deliberation
Decisive moment gives no time for deliberation
clearly deliberation over a shutter release isn't mandatory then for artwork






Can a master painter be a horrible photographer?
sure
Is that ever because the eye just isnt there for it?
I dunno about that myself
I truly believe people expect photographs to look a certain way
I truly believe that in many instances if he were to paint his photographs they would be considered ..skilled works of art
So why do they get lost in transition?
Callahan took photos with telephone poles growing out of heads
His still work
I bet nobody at LFF would even show ONLINE a photo they took with the same intended "mistake"
why not?


I'm looking for a why here
people are full of words -even poetic phrasing of words- yet give little of anything "substantive" out of either lack of ability or lack of concern in having to prove ones opinion

it should be easy


I can say that an autistic child shows no emotion
I can say Bill the farmer shows no emotion
They don't always quite mean the same thing

The autistic ..doesn't look at you ..makes no connection through eye to eye contact
he doesn't seem to care about yada yada
He's diagnosed ..because of these
Where are the ..these... in regards to Tichy?



where is all the "talking about aesthetics"
Where are the true critiques? This stuff wouldn't pass on photosig

I'm thinking people are just scared they may not know as much as they believe they did
saying nothing is just as shallow as saying I like cause I like
probably more so actually

[sun of sand]

taking up too much of my time waiting though

[sun of sand]

is this one great?
http://www.saladeprensa.org/hcb02.jpg
I don't think so

Sure ain't great cause it's of an old near death woman stead of a young leggy one
The checker pattern against the repetition of chairs? Yeah, OK
Shown that in Tichy, too ..stronger IMO

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i217/trefebbraio/prof_06_cartier_bresson_brasserie_l.jpg

Cut out the old lady and you have Tichy

So why do people call this a great photograph? The composition isn't any better than Tichys best
You can write up a little narrative about how the old lady longs for her youth and blah blah blah
that's not art of the photograph that's the art of you looking at the photo

Who says a photograph with people in it has to lend itself to storytelling
i dont get that

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=bresson#focal=5a9baa644d7ecda617e421677e940a0d&furl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pdngallery.com%2F20years%2Fart%2F20mostinfluential%2Fbresson.jpg

Old dude drinking tea in a rough setting? Big deal
it's just an old dude pouring tea
composition isn't any stronger
roof shingle line, doorway vertical, logs, table jutting into frame

you're just looking for possible storylines
what is wrong with a photograph meant purely as art
in and of itself
nothing more


http://digilander.libero.it/gipp1/motori/velosolex/velosolex-cartier-bresson.jpg

what's this? Boobs and a cycle
composition of lines

where is the vision here? Is it HIS vision or just what you feel inclined to think about while viewing?
carefree spirit? i frankly don't get this one but the composition is pleasing
boobs are well liked and so are motorcycles

Is that IT?

[jb7]

It seems to me that Tichy's photographs would have no more (and no less) artistic merit if he had used ordinary photographic equipment. The collective work would still consists of photographs depicting the same subjects in the same way. Perhaps for reasons of stealth Tichy would have needed to camouflage his ordinary camera in a cardboard camera-shaped box, but the photographs would be equal in their realization to what he produced with his junk cameras. I am not suggesting that the resulting photographic prints would be exactly the same, only that they would be equivalent in their artistic presence. Do you agree ?

I would also disagree-

Perhaps one of the issues brought out by this discussion is the assumption that Tichý can be directly compared to other photographers,
and other photographic techniques.

I'm not entirely sure this is the case, although I'm not sure how Tichý might come off in comparison to other artists-
Joseph Bueys, for example- another artist accused of the construction of a 'mythologized artistic persona'.

I know little of either, before anyone lays down a challenge,
but Tichý seems to inhabit a self made world, and the cameras made from rubbish, and the prints mounted on rubbish, seem to be intrinsic to the vision.

I've seen his equipment questioned, along the lines of
'surely it must have been possible to get a secondhand camera, even then ...'
but I don't think that was the point, the man, the tools, and the product all seem to merge,
and each would be worth less if taken individually, without taking the whole process into account.

I've never seen a print, so I reserve judgment until I do-
I think there's a great danger in commenting on a piece of work without actually seeing it.
Although the internet allows universal access to reduced facsimiles, and regurgitated comment, the prints themselves, and the material on which they're mounted,
seem to be very specific objects-
Not necessarily capable of being reproduced, as you might expect to be able to buy a reprint of an Ansel Adams-
since that photographer's name has been mentioned in the course of this discussion...

[Michael Alpert]

Perhaps these pictures are not intended as a source of visual epiphany. Instead they could stand as certificates of artistic performance; that the great deed has been done and the great thought thunk.

Thank you Maris, Walter, jb7, sun of sand, and others. I don't have the answer to my question; that's the reason I asked it. Based on what you have written, it seems that the performance aspect of Tichy's work is central (I like the way Maris expressed this); and . . . perhaps it is the same for other photographers: Edward Weston in his frugal darkroom; the Hollywood portrait photographers with their fancy lighting; the great Western photographers with their giant cameras and heavy wagons; Mike Disfarmer in his little studio--maybe they are all performers in this same sense, doing the great deed and thunking the great thought. Usually, one says that with a great work of art nothing can be changed; the work is specifically what it is and any change diminishes the whole effort. I was (and am) not absolutely sure if this is the case with Tichy, who seems so organic, if that is the right word, in his process.

But there is another question that comes to mind. I'm surprised that no one has asked this already since the question addresses to the relationship between an artist's life and an artist's work. The question is: Are there some of Tichy's photographs that you like better than others? That is, are there some of Tichy's photographs that you think are more successful that others? If so, why?

[walter23]

Why is it that people can accept photos of road markings as abstracts but these are merely pictures of women

I'm sure part of it is just basic discomfort with sexuality, especially suggestions of what many would consider to be a twisted sexuality, ie., voyeurism.

[walter23]

I'm not of that vocabulary so it just seems like random words poetically arranged
can you clarify it for me

I almost spat out some coffee with laughter - this in conjunction with your way of writing is an absolutely hilarious juxtaposition (no offense intended) ;)

[walter23]

Are there some of Tichy's photographs that you like better than others? That is, are there some of Tichy's photographs that you think are more successful that others? If so, why?

I'm barely interested in his photos, I don't actually care for them as pure images. I looked more at the printing methods and framing than the images themselves, and I spent most of my time reading about him and looking for photos of him and his contraptions!

Apparently, if you accept the story, he spent a couple of decades in and out of soviet prisons. If this is true it makes me believe he came by his affectations honestly. Combined with his years of toil without any real efforts at self-promotion I get the impression he was basically living in his strange way and doing his weird photography for his own purposes, and that is the core of what I find intriguing about him.

He was also making his own weird cameras in the 50s, long before any of the Holga or "lo-fi" craze took hold. Half a century before, in fact.

[walter23]

Here's a good summary. How much is fact and how much fiction I don't really know, it's probably a healthy mixture. But it's interesting anyway.

http://www.cirkusworld.com/tichy/tichy.html

[Robert Hughes]

"Printing by moonlight"! That is ueber-romantic!! Does it work?

[walter23]

"Printing by moonlight"! That is ueber-romantic!! Does it work?

Probably gives you some working time, if you don't have an enlarger or safelights or anything...

[GPS]

...
Apparently, if you accept the story, he spent a couple of decades in and out of soviet prisons.
...

Where the heck did you find this story?? He never put his foot to the Soviet Union of that time! He was in prison in his own country, named Czechoslovakia, in that time. :rolleyes:

[Robert Hughes]

Soviet prison and penal camps in Czechoslovakia are referred to on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_camp) and Conservapedia (http://www.conservapedia.com/Czechoslovakia):

"Czechoslovakia

"In Feb. 1948 the local Communists seized control.... They kept filled 422 prisons and concentration camps with dissidents. Western outrage as the Communist takeover was a major factor that caused the Cold War."

"After the communists took over Czechoslovakia in 1948, many forced labor camps were created. The inmates included political prisoners, clergy, kulaks, boyscouts leaders and many other groups of people that were considered enemies of the state. Most of the prisoners worked in the uranium mines. These camps lasted until mid-1950s. "

"On August 21, 1968 the Soviet Union and its satellite Warsaw Pact allies invaded Czechoslovakia to crush Prague Spring, and execute its leaders. "

Whether Tichý was at any of those camps (or subsequent post-Dubcjek prisons) is a matter of speculation to us: I suppose only he'd know by now, and he probably doesn't care to speak of it.

[GPS]

Soviet prisons in Czechoslovakia are referred to on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_camp):

"Czechoslovakia

"After the communists took over Czechoslovakia in 1948, many forced labor camps were created. The inmates included political prisoners, clergy, kulaks, boyscouts leaders and many other groups of people that were considered enemies of the state. Most of the prisoners worked in the uranium mines. These camps lasted until mid-1950s. "

Whether Tichý was at any of those camps is a matter of speculation to us: I suppose only he'd know by now, and he probably doesn't care to speak of it.

Where do you see any mention of "Soviet prisons" in the citation? With the same logic you could speak about Soviet prisons in the US labor prison camps...:)
Tichy was in prison in the seventies - long after the "camps" were closed. Go on, bring more of the American geographical and political knowledge about European countries...:rolleyes:

[GPS]

...

"On August 21, 1968 the Soviet Union and its satellite Warsaw Pact allies invaded Czechoslovakia to crush Prague Spring, and execute its leaders. "

Whether Tichý was at any of those camps (or subsequent post-Dubcjek prisons) is a matter of speculation to us: I suppose only he'd know by now, and he probably doesn't care to speak of it.

Execute its leaders?? While the occupation indeed took place, no Czech leader was executed during it... Go on, bring more of that exclusive knowledge...:)

Why would only Tichy know where he was in prison? The dissidents of that time knew it all too well - even the psychiatric institution he was in for a period of time. Camps didn't exist in that time there - even your Wikipedia source told you that...:rolleyes:

[walter23]

Where the heck did you find this story?? He never put his foot to the Soviet Union of that time! He was in prison in his own country, named Czechoslovakia, in that time. :rolleyes:

I have a Czech grandfather, and he refers to the ruling communists as "Soviets," so I guess I just picked up the habit from him. He escaped from them and into Germany by ducking through barbed wire while being shot at from a guard tower on the border.

Besides, if you were to ask him, Czekoslovakia was no country; only the subhuman Slovaks would like to think they were ever a part of the great Czech Republic by putting their dirty Slovak name into it (old racial tensions are strongest amongst the most similar people I think ;)). This is the same man who will have an hour-long friendly conversation with a Slovak (each speaking their respective languages) and then complain that "damned Slovaks doesn't know how to speak, I could not understand word he was saying."

[Michael Alpert]

I'm barely interested in his photos . . .

Walter,

Your lack of interest in Tichy's photographs is quite clear. And it appears that you are not alone. I guess this is a fan club, though Tichy seems an unlikely subject for youthful adulation. I don't know what is factually true or factually false, but I view his life as another tale of sorrow. Twentieth-century Europe was filled with such tales.

It's strange to say, but when I first encountered this forum about a decade ago, it was a forum about photography. People were not necessarily wiser then, but that feisty group seemed specifically interested in worthwhile photographs and how to make them. I think the forum has gone down hill. And I think for now I'll bow out.

[walter23]

It's strange to say, but when I first encountered this forum about a decade ago, it was a forum about photography. People were not necessarily wiser then, but that feisty group seemed specifically interested in worthwhile photographs and how to make them. I think the forum has gone down hill. And I think for now I'll bow out.

I'll tabulate this as melodramatic internet 'goodbye' message #7,281. I've been witnessing them since the days of usenet newsgroups and dial-up BBSes...



Your lack of interest in Tichy's photographs is quite clear. And it appears that you are not alone. I guess this is a fan club, though Tichy seems an unlikely subject for youthful adulation.

You're speaking as though finding this unusual character fascinating is some kind of moral abomination, which is kind of hard for me to get my head around. In any event, a big part of his identity is "quirky photographer". Discussion of him is relevant to this forum in that respect, whatever you might think of his images.


I view his life as another tale of sorrow. Twentieth-century Europe was filled with such tales.

Hey, people find that stuff fascinating. There's a strange sort of nostalgia in it. Why else read something like Dostoyevsky, or (dare I even say) Elie Wiesel?

[GPS]

I have a Czech grandfather, and he refers to the ruling communists as "Soviets," so I guess I just picked up the habit from him. He escaped from them and into Germany by ducking through barbed wire while being shot at from a guard tower on the border.

Besides, if you were to ask him, Czekoslovakia was no country; only the subhuman Slovaks would like to think they were ever a part of the great Czech Republic by putting their dirty Slovak name into it (old racial tensions are strongest amongst the most similar people I think ;)). This is the same man who will have an hour-long friendly conversation with a Slovak (each speaking their respective languages) and then complain that "damned Slovaks doesn't know how to speak, I could not understand word he was saying."

The ruling Czechoslovak communists of that time were as much "Soviets" as the French Nazi collaborators in France were "Germans"...:)
As to the rest of your knowledge - when the Czech Republic became that - the Czech Republic, Slovaks were not a part of it anymore (that's why Czechoslovakia became just the Czech Republic...:rolleyes: )
As to your grandfather's opinion that Czechoslovakia (you cannot even spell its name correctly!) was "no country" - it's enough to say that in the time before the WWII it was the fifth most industrialized country in Europe...
Bring more of the Canadian knowledge of European countries - it seems to be even more developed than the American knowledge exposed in this thread...;)

[walter23]

PREFACE: I'm not pretending to be an expert on European political history, but you're attacking with a pretty petty (and I'd argue invalid) distinction so I'm going to fire back with what I do know, from conversations with my grandfather who was directly involved. What's your beef here, over this totally petty issue of semantics? Did you just see an opportunity to show how stupid someone was by pointing out the pretty obvious fact that not all of "Eastern" Europe (save your breath on the use of "Eastern", man) is the same, politically, geographically, or culturally?


The ruling Czechoslovak communists of that time were as much "Soviets" as the French Nazi collaborators in France were "Germans"...:)

My grandfather talks about Soviet tanks rolling into Prague, and being forced to learn Russian. The Czech Communist republic was just a puppet (or part) of the larger soviet instrument. When he (grandfather) escaped into Germany he was shot at by Russian (not Czech) soldiers on the western border. So yeah, he was escaping the Soviets, and so it's probably appropriate to talk of Soviet rule. As for your NAZI comparison; it would be appropriate to call French NAZI collaborators "NAZIs" even though they weren't part of the German NAZI political party.. and that's kind of a more appropriate analogy. And it would be equally appropriate to refer NAZI occupied France as being a NAZI regime, but of course we can start pointing out the not insignificant differences too (obviously Communist Czechoslovakia is not directly analogous to NAZI-occupied France, but you brought up the analogy here, so don't start jumping on me for extending it). On the other hand my grandfather sure thought of the communist government as being a Russian occupational thing, not a proper Czech government. But political opinions differ between people and obviously I can't speak for all Czechs here.

To get back to Tichy, the point was that he was in and out of jails for being politically edgy during the communist period.


As to the rest of your knowledge - when the Czech Republic became that - the Czech Republic, Slovaks were not a part of it anymore (that's why Czechoslovakia became just the Czech Republic...:rolleyes: )

Right. That's why I differentiated the two and referred to Czechoslovakia and Czech republic in different contexts.


As to your grandfather's opinion that Czechoslovakia (you cannot even spell its name correctly!) was "no country" - it's enough to say that in the time before the WWII it was the fifth most industrialized country in Europe...

The country called Czechoslovakia only existed in the 20th century and, from what I understand, the Czech and Slovaks have pretty strong individual nationalistist sentiments and many don't really consider themselves part of the same nation (I use the word nation in the sense of ideology here, although of course now the Czech republic and slovakia are separate). The nationalist sentiments dividing Czechs and Slovaks transcend generations; a 25 year old Slovak and my Czech grandfather were talking once and they both agreed they were very different.

It's not the same as the DDR where the Americans and Russians divided Germans based on some fairly arbitrary geographic line, where everybody sort of knew that the DDR and Germany were still the same nation even though they were under different circumstances / occupation. So that's what I meant - there's a rich history in the region, and the short-lived country called Czechoslovakia is just one tiny facet of it. (My grandfather actually does refer to himself as from Czechoslovakia... please take this in the spirit in which it is intended, "subhuman slovaks" isn't an opinion I hold, just humorous musings about how to my western eyes they speak the same language and are from the same country and everything but are viciously nationalistic towards one another).

PS: The misspelling was a typo (you might notice how I spelled Czech republic if you don't believe me).

[walter23]

Execute its leaders?? While the occupation indeed took place, no Czech leader was executed during it... Go on, bring more of that exclusive knowledge...:)

I don't really know much about what he was referring to (Prague Spring) and I'm not going to take the easy way out and go google it to pretend I know something, but I think he was referring to the leaders of *that movement*, not the leaders of the country. That's how I read that sentence anyway.

[GPS]

I don't really know much about what he was referring to (Prague Spring) and I'm not going to take the easy way out and go google it to pretend I know something, but I think he was referring to the leaders of *that movement*, not the leaders of the country. That's how I read that sentence anyway.

A very wise and honest decision, Walter, which I appreciate. In fact, the leaders of the Prague Spring were disenchanted communist leaders - they were simply gradually "disposed off" after the Soviet occupation and the following "normalization" process. Tichy paid dearly for his dissent and many think that during his prison time he became psychologically "off". But more detailed analysis would show that he simply reacted in an extreme way to the pressure put on him by the communist authorities.
As an interesting fact - I was invited to go and visit him, as I was a photographer who had access to that country and their dissidents. I declined the offer, knowing that I would be in the country followed by the secret police and it could endanger my contacts. I was told about his self made cameras - he was building them because for "his" photography they were sufficient tools and for some other reasons too...:)

[walter23]

after the Soviet occupation

<cough> ;)


he was building them because for "his" photography they were sufficient tools and for some other reasons too...:)

I'm curious to know more. It's cool that you have some direct exposure to this guy; I've only read a few biographies and as I mentioned it's really not clear how much is fact and how much fiction.

BTW, I take it you are from the region or something? What's your relationship?

[GPS]

Some of the reasons for his own camera building were financial ones (he had no job), also the possibility to better access his photo subjects (nobody on streets believed it was a camera capable of taking pictures as he was taken for a crazy adult with a toy), his extravagant lifestyle, etc.
The reason for the presence of parts of a fence in his photos was not a compositional one as somebody here suggested. He was forbidden (regarded as too dirty and crazy) to access public swimming places where he used to look for his photo subjects. Therefore he used to sit behind a fence around the place and to take pictures from there...
He even constructed his own telephoto gun, actually resembling a short gun...

[sun of sand]

The reason for the presence of parts of a fence in his photos was not a compositional one as somebody here suggested. He was forbidden (regarded as too dirty and crazy) to access public swimming places where he used to look for his photo subjects. Therefore he used to sit behind a fence around the place and to take pictures from there...


Fences/grids/nets are often a part of his imagery. Not just the ones where he was obviously shooting through a chain link
Sometimes they are elemental to the photo
Perhaps he was forced to include the fencing in some but surely in others he didn't HAVE TO

http://www.paulhina.com/hinablog-archives/tichy3.jpg
2nd image portrait with umbrella
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=miroslav+tichy#focal=0788203ad141c3dab8490d9003f6a494&furl=http://www.arttattler.com/Images/Europe/Sweden/Stockholm/Magasin%203/Tichy%20and%20Cameron/bild_12.jpg
also one further down of a group scene
http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j316/jason_mashak/Miscelaneous/MiroslavTichy2.jpg
purse is checkered
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=miroslav+tichy#focal=2907e71173f526124790eb5078fcfd75&furl=http%3A%2F%2Fep.yimg.com%2Fca%2FI%2Fartbook_2081_154352989
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=miroslav+tichy#focal=6a28d7168b84f70fcdd7a4cc89bf9419&furl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.benadriaenssen.be%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fthemes%2Fdefault%2Fimages%2Ftichy1.jpg
http://www.kunstnet.at/thoman/picts/09_10_04.jpg
http://www.burgercollection.org/.imaging/gen-size-showbox/website/home/works/work1323/images/0.jpg
http://www.burgercollection.org/.imaging/gen-size-showbox/website/home/works/work1321/images/0.jpg
http://www.burgercollection.org/.imaging/gen-size-showbox/website/home/works/work1319/images/0.jpg
http://www.burgercollection.org/.imaging/gen-size-showbox/website/home/works/work1320/images/0.jpg
http://www.burgercollection.org/.imaging/gen-size-showbox/website/home/works/work1316/images/0.jpg
http://www.burgercollection.org/.imaging/gen-size-showbox/website/home/works/work1291/images/0.jpg
crossing lines
http://www.burgercollection.org/.imaging/gen-size-showbox/website/home/works/work1289/images/0.jpg
looks like he chose to frame this one with grid paper
http://www.photorevue.com/phprs/obr/tichy1.jpg


I still say he chooses to include fencing/grids/crosshatches/tiles whatever
whether he's forced to shoot from outside them or not doesn't really matter

[sun of sand]

Thank you Maris, Walter, jb7, sun of sand, and others. I don't have the answer to my question; that's the reason I asked it. Based on what you have written, it seems that the performance aspect of Tichy's work is central (I like the way Maris expressed this); and . . . perhaps it is the same for other photographers: Edward Weston in his frugal darkroom; the Hollywood portrait photographers with their fancy lighting; the great Western photographers with their giant cameras and heavy wagons; Mike Disfarmer in his little studio--maybe they are all performers in this same sense, doing the great deed and thunking the great thought. Usually, one says that with a great work of art nothing can be changed; the work is specifically what it is and any change diminishes the whole effort. I was (and am) not absolutely sure if this is the case with Tichy, who seems so organic, if that is the right word, in his process.

But there is another question that comes to mind. I'm surprised that no one has asked this already since the question addresses to the relationship between an artist's life and an artist's work. The question is: Are there some of Tichy's photographs that you like better than others? That is, are there some of Tichy's photographs that you think are more successful that others? If so, why?

I still do not understand "certificate of performance"
from which perspective? I don't get this one bit
Isn't the photo of you standing tall at the DMV a "certificate of performance"

To me
certificate of performance sounds a lot like a record of something done
not art
just ..evidence that something here occured



Doesn't everyone care for certain works of art more than others?
I happen to like one of Ansels relatively unknown photographs best

I really like Sam Francis
But the Sam Francis I like is the Sam Francis of between 1950 and 1965?
The rest of his work -the Swatch Watch Era of his work- I don't care for


tell me which is which...

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=sam+francis+#focal=f212d3f3dbc21d58a93a2b65919807fa&furl=http://www.pollsb.com/photos/o/345-sam_francis.jpg
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=sam+francis+&form=QBIR&qs=n#focal=8d957455b85c3de3e14e9a78fc715bc2&furl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.magnoliaeditions.com%2FContent%2FFrancis%2FF00002.JPG

[sun of sand]

I almost spat out some coffee with laughter - this in conjunction with your way of writing is an absolutely hilarious juxtaposition (no offense intended) ;)

If I say something you cant understand I'll keep trying though

I think I write the way I do because people will often just read and not think
if you make it sound good it will be accepted
may be completely empty or obvious but
hey that sounded good

[sun of sand]

Usually, one says that with a great work of art nothing can be changed; the work is specifically what it is and any change diminishes the whole effort.

changed by the artist or someone else? when? I think I'd need an example of work being ruined

sitting here thinking about this cause it seems to be taken from the viewers perspective and not the artists and i don't


I would suspect -i've heard it plenty- that not many times is a painting ever considered truly finished ..its just at a point where the artist is essentially stumped and they have to move on
after the artist declares it "done" I don't think they'd ever go back to it to change it
so
obviously most would say a work cannot be altered ..because one never has been
I dunno

Proably one reason for an artist to do a series

Maybe someone has a love for Star Wars
perhaps they believe jar jar binks ruined Star Wars
but he would have just ruined THAT star wars

Lucky Charms seems to keep adding marshmallows
seems to
but I don't hate lucky charms cereal
I just consider it different than it was when I was a kid

If Weston began using an enlarger nobody would then hate westons work or finally call him out on his lack of skill once he sold out



ALTHOUGH BRETT FAVRE
Man, people hated on him once he got traded
not me
Brett continued on kicking ass
but they'll never admit it

[Robert Hughes]

OTOH I've heard from several of my artist friends that a painting or other artwork can get worked overmuch, and loses its artistic merit. The trick, according to them, is knowing when to stop...

I've run into this problem as a recording musician. Sometimes the demo tape had an indefinable "something" to it, which a more heavily worked, technically superior recording didn't recapture. It can be quite frustrating to have your best effort bested by a quick, dashed-off demo.

This overworked effect can also be heard listening to some revival jazz bands - the best musicians, with monster chops, playing perfectly proper but boring renditions of old tunes; museum-embalmed jazz.

[sun of sand]

But that's not being changed
if one gets overworked it simply never -becomes- a great work

If a viewer decides something is overworked
who knows what forms their opinons
maybe they just aren't used to it ..maybe they are wrong
an artist thinking their work is overdone is just an artist being an artist
if you're looking for a a straight line and draw the worlds worst
it isn't going to work




I'm going back to callahan
I like some of his photos
I think his eleanor shots with tele poles and such are fabulous and winter scenes/trees
http://www.shanelavalette.com/journal/00/harrycallahan04.jpg
that's beautiful
quite abstracted portrait


but this little collection
I'd never go to see this junk
http://www.stephendaitergallery.com/dynamic/artwork_display.asp?ArtworkID=2279

a trashcan
dark room with nude figure on bed with window

to me these are worse than Tichys best

[Robert Hughes]

if one gets overworked it simply never -becomes- a great work
Rather, it was a great work that was marred by continuing after it was finished.

[walter23]

Well, this does further support my understand that he came by his eccentricities honestly... he wasn't pretending to be some crazed semi-homeless guy, he actually was that guy.


Some of the reasons for his own camera building were financial ones (he had no job), also the possibility to better access his photo subjects (nobody on streets believed it was a camera capable of taking pictures as he was taken for a crazy adult with a toy), his extravagant lifestyle, etc.
The reason for the presence of parts of a fence in his photos was not a compositional one as somebody here suggested. He was forbidden (regarded as too dirty and crazy) to access public swimming places where he used to look for his photo subjects. Therefore he used to sit behind a fence around the place and to take pictures from there...
He even constructed his own telephoto gun, actually resembling a short gun...

[jnantz]

i kind of like his work because it gets to the foundation of what photography is about.
it isn't about expensive equipment &C
it is about making photographs of things that mean something to the photographer.

[sun of sand]

Rather, it was a great work that was marred by continuing after it was finished.


This relates back to Brett Favre

Who exactly is it in control of the artwork?

The viewer or the artist?

If the artist continues working on his piece of artwork it was never finished
even if stopping work at some earlier point would have better perfected the work
it is none of the viewers business

[sun of sand]

looking at maholy nagy and some of his photographs

any opinions on this guy

[Mike Anderson]

This relates back to Brett Favre

Who exactly is it in control of the artwork?

The viewer or the artist?

If the artist continues working on his piece of artwork it was never finished
even if stopping work at some earlier point would have better perfected the work
it is none of the viewers business

The curator is in charge of the artwork. A person with money who buys the artwork becomes in charge of the artwork. If the art doesn't sell, then the artist retains control of the artwork.

(I still don't understand what Brett Favre has to do with this stuff, much as I like the guy.)

...Mike

[sun of sand]

isn't the curator only truly in charge of what the gallery shows in terms of its selected artwork
he isn't ever in charge of the artwork itself
never in the process
he is just a signer/displayer/caretaker

Lots of people wanted Brett Favre to retire so that his legend wouldn't be dimished by playing a few last years putting up mediocre numbers and getting hurt etc
"to keep on working overworking a deemed "great" work of art "career"

VERY MUCH relates


If an artist decides the artwork isn't finished and "ruins" it in the eyes of the viewer by overworking it
it was never finished
never completed
NEVER great
absolutely never MARRED

during time of its creation/working the only person who has any business in it is the artist
It is not up to the viewer to decide when the artist should stop working just as it isn't up to brett favre to decide when you should stop drinking on the weekend

a work can only become something
great poor whatever
after the artist has finished with it

why
because perhaps overworking something is key to getting somewhere great in its own right in the future that otherwise wouldn't be realized if he were to listen to all passersby telling him to stop...stop.....now stop ........alright now its ruined I loved it 3minutes ago great job

If the art doesn't sell
it doesn't sell
what matters most is the artist was DONE
not that no money was made lol

[Lars Daniel]

I must admit I did not have patience to read through the last pages of this thread. Anyway I will submit my non-intellectual 5 rupees:

I saw the exibition in Frankfurt a couple of years ago. I felt profoundly captivated and inspired. His life is a work of art to me.
Also, seing the exibition woke up the sleeping photographer in me, and shortly after I bought my first *serious* camera.

[jmooney]

FWIW, the latest issue of B&W magazine has a little article on Tichy.

[Kirk Keyes]

http://artnews.org/miroslavtichy/?s=2&i=16

A photo of a nice ass ..the one with chick laid out on a towel next to someone else

But couldn't he have taken it at any time

why wait till that very gesture

His photos remind me of the Seinfeld episode when Kramer recieves a license plate for his car that says, "ASSMAN".

Not that there's anything wrong with that...

[Jay DeFehr]

Baudelaire might have called Tichy's work, "natural". I call it honest.

[Brian C. Miller]

(yes, I read the *whole* thread. Ack!)

Here's my take: the biography seems true. Tichý is pursuing what he wants, as he wants to pursue it. I see him as a painter who makes photographs. Does he make his own brushes? I don't know, but I think that he simply enjoys building his own cameras.

So what if he develops his film "in a kettle." Has nobody here developed sheet film in a painting tray liner? How many have made a pinhole camera? OK, he prints by the light of the moon. I think that is just something he enjoys doing, not because he doesn't have electric light in his house.

The guy lives in filth. Well, lots of people live the same way. While this is not normal, it isn't unknown. He sounds like a compulsive hoarder, like Langley and Homer Collyer, but of course not as rich.

What I do wish is this: I wish that I could just drop in and visit him. I think that dinner with him would be very interesting.

[Mike Anderson]

...
What I do wish is this: I wish that I could just drop in and visit him. I think that dinner with him would be very interesting.

I can relate to that. His photos don't do much to me, but a dinner might be interesting.

...Mike

[John Capreze]

These guys have a large collection by Tichy, I saw some of the works. really amazing stuff. www.groosmanphoto.ch

cheers,

John

[Kirk Gittings]

These guys have a large collection by Tichy, I saw some of the works. really amazing stuff. www.groosmanphoto.ch

cheers,

John

I'm curious why you think these are amazing? They just seem like bad snapshots to me.

[BarryS]

I'm curious why you think these are amazing? They just seem like bad snapshots to me.

Seeing as the guy only has two posts on this board--and they're identical with the same link; it looks like he's a shill for the gallery.