I'm inclined to believe a bit of both. Either way, I'm fascinated by his photos and body of work. More pictures at the article and especially at the Facebook page (links below). The picture on Facebook of developing photos in a bathtub gives a hint to the squalor of his living and working space. Well worth some time to read, view, and enjoy.
From the link: "Charming eccentric or tolerated local boogyman? The townspeople of Kyjov in Czech Republic could never quite decide. Miroslav Tichý took nearly a hundred photographs a day with his homemade camera, wandering around the streets of his hometown, often spotted at bus stops, the main square, the park and the swimming pool, although he was frequently arrested for lingering around the local pool taking pictures of unsuspecting women."
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Miroslav-Tich%C3%BD/160033437391662
Google+: View post on Google+
Post imported by Google+Blog. Created By Daniel Treadwell.
+Andrew Clifton-Brown This seems like it might be of interest to you.
How is this not the equivalent of a pervy upskirt-shooter?
Voyeurism is not art.
UGH! exactly +Wanda Howe I made a post yesterday about an upskirter – well, actually reshared such a post- and everyone but the OP knew it was wrong and disgusting
+Wanda Howe I can not argue that completely.
Did any of you read the article to see how widely publicized the work was, and by people much more learned than I? It's not like I pulled this out of a skeevy magazine in the back of a seedy bar. I'm not saying that voyeurism is art either, +Chad Wilson. Anyone here especially that surfs my content knows that I am not about any of that. I did find the article intriguing, regardless of the negative sentiments being expressed. I am not comfortable with pictures of things that one could not see in public without the person's permission. To my knowledge, all of the shots are taken where the subjects are public. I think the entire topic is, of course, open for intelligent discourse.
Also, come on… anyone into photography would be interested to lay their hands on that crazy make-shift camera.
that camera is sweet!
I read the article. In the artists mind, he believed he was doing art. But since his subjects were mostly women and many of the scantily clad, one would wonder what the subjects felt if they knew their picture was being taken and distributed. Especially the completely undressed.
For the photos taken in public with the perceived permission of the subject, then things are more art — to me. You can see them smiling, even posing. You can see an implied consent as the artist and subject work each other.
I'm simply posing a question.
+Chad Wilson Do people take the same offense of street photography of the derelict or the homeless when they do not know they are being photographed? Desperation is art but perceived titillation is not? Just one of the thoughts that came to mind when digesting these works and the social aspects they bring up.
just different types of exploitation- street photography is a window to the world – not sexual titillation
I have to admit that I'm fascinated by this story. It makes me uncomfortable, but at the same time, it has a much different "feel" than the post you shared yesterday, +miri dunn because it actually does feel like "art." I don't know if it's his working conditions, his equipment, or his "eccentricity." He took almost a hundred photos a day. I'd be interested to see the range of his work. Is it only women? Does he have a problem with crossing boundaries because he doesn't really understand boundaries? What is his mental health like?
If Robert Mapplethorpe can be considered an artist, I'd definitely be open to calling this photographer an artist.
Great find, +Scott Cramer
For me, it comes down to level of consent. On the street, taking pictures of people is fair game. People are shopping, walking to work, just out for a stroll, whatever. It is already established that your visage is public domain at that point. But, there are other times when the behavior becomes 'lewd' under the law, or unethical. For me, it is no longer art if the person had a reasonable expectation of privacy, or a reasonable sense that pictures were not being taken for distribution. Recent complaints against Google Street View are clear examples under the law, though, where distributing pictures of without consent got them in trouble, leading Google to develop a way to remove people from pictures. Is there a difference between Google taking pictures of Main Street, Hometown and an artist dressed as a vagabond?
In the way of titillation in art, I am fine with that. The human body has been the subject of art throughout history and I would not get in the way of that.
It's a tough one to be honest. And I'm not looking to argue. I love to photograph people. A splash of light here and a twist of a hip there and I'm gobsmacked. All of these sights that pass between our eyes and we want to record them. And to do it on that camera is quite staggering. The issue is of course taking the pictures of people without permission and I entirely agree it isn't really on but I do find it fascinating and he has taken some really well shot pics.
I find a lot of street shooters cross the line in this respect btw.
OK, I read the article, and the guy was creepy. However, I still see it as art. It seems like his attitude was much more from a motivation of defiance than lewdness. It's like he wanted to break the rules including the rules of what type of equipment he used.
No doubt he crossed the line. But his work makes me uncomfortable because viewing it gives the feeling of being a voyeur. It seems like that is what he was trying to achieve more than just taking a bunch of pervy pics.
100 % peeping Tom.
While we might see the art in the equipment and the end results, then I still don't think this guy is anything more more than a creeper who spies on unsuspecting women/girls. While I think some of his shots are artistic I'm still too creeped out to enjoy the beauty of them. In this case the end doesn't justify the means.
I find this disturbing…can't we get away from the rat race? …the Drones are coming!
and seriously- some of those shots are not good at all – out of focus, bad lighting –
Is it possible to separate the body of work into the acceptable and not acceptable and still enjoy the acceptable camp knowing that the other exists?
P.s., +Wanda Howe No worries; it's a great question to pose. I had shields up. Sorry!
that's an interesting question. There is an artist who was making Hitler art – white supremacy stuff – and his fans thought for years they were a sort of parody. Then it was discovered he had actually been a Hitler supporter . Did the art lose value knowing his motivation? To some people, yes/
Has anyone come across a link to his thoughts and ideology behind the shots btw?
"When he was banned from the local pool, he made telephoto lenses with cardboard tubes to snap his clandestine photographs from a distance, which is why a wire fence can sometimes be seen in his pictures."
His ideology is inferred lol
From the New York Photo review "Whatever eroticism is present is limited to that of the voyeur; these women are not inviting us into their world."
Not really selling me on that +miri dunn, but I understand what happened, not who he is. I'm not a bleeding heart liberal, more just interested in the mindset.
he seems a social rebel, basically – In many a town he would be prosecuted for something lol
The most disturbing thing for me is the underlying sense of ownership and privacy. The idea that if someone is out in pubic, they and/or their image are/is up for grabs. That doesn't sit right with me.
Also, the fact that someone in academia decides these are works of art, despite the fact that the creator didn't seem to have a lot, if any respect for the final prints …
There is quite a lot to talk about, to be sure, but so far, I only have questions. Endless questions. :/
*titillation notwithstanding … for now.
great discussion, BTW
+Wanda Howe Good comment on the sense of ownership and privacy, and on academia deeming something as art.
Will have to digest more later. Busy at office today; not ignoring.
+Shawna Mac this is an interesting discussion for which you might have some input
Same +Scott Cramer . These great discussions don't seem to happen when I'm relaxing at home with a cuppa. 🙂
Mmmk. Well, seeing as how I frequently take pictures of people in public without their knowledge, and my camera is held together with duct tape.. 😛
I don't think he's done anything illegal.. the difference between him and a 'pervy upskirt shooter' is that these women chose to be seen in public that way and the photographer merely captured it. There is no indication that he attempted to circumvent their clothing or invade their privacy and the pictures are artistic and beautiful. The questionable bit is that he chose to photograph scantily clad women, but look at any magazine rack and you'll see the same thing only it's large corporations trying to profit from it.
thanks +Shawna Mac for responding – I knew you would have something to add
+Luis Roca Comments… I was thinking you also did yet photography.
+Edouard E Artist perspective too…
I don't get the sense, from this article, that the women are choosing to be seen that way in public … it sounds to me that with the fences, his frequent arrests and his resorting to telescopic lenses … I think his gaze is unwanted and he understands it full well. Then, we could probably get into a discussion of what is public, what boundaries are expected in public …
I think this is why I have a problem with these photos; as artful or beautiful as these images may be, even though the 'subjects' are outside of closed doors, there is still an element of privacy invasion coming through. At least for me.
We could also be dealing with norms based on the year these were taken and the country which could create some dissonance when comparing against our own time and home country.
Addressing his getting arrested, I think hanging out and obviously ogling the women at the pool could be creepy and harassing. A casual pic as most street photographers do would be more low key and then the photog would move on – or perhaps let the person know after the fact. It might not have been the fact that he took a picture but the way in which he personally looked and handled himself.
When my friends and i take pics of each other, we look through them and give the "OK – you ca use that" lol- being in public and agreeing to have any old pose/look/ position/angle published are different. I get the laws – and I like street photography. But this dude was a creeper lol
It's funny, I've been thinking about this all day. (Sign of a great post, +Scott Cramer!) I've been trying to explore it from all angles.
How do I feel viewing the work?
Uncomfortable.
Does Tichý's story make a difference?
Absolutely! It's almost as if he was trying to make his entire existence an act of willful disobedience. The equipment he used including grinding his own lenses. The squalor of his lifestyle. He lived on disability, so there has to be a story there.
How do I feel about the body of work?
I can't argue the beauty. The imperfection of the photos add to the overall effect.
How would I feel if my mother was the subject of one of his shots?
Completely conflicted. I wouldn't want her to be photographed without her knowledge, but if it captured a moment of her being herself in her youth, it seems like something that would be priceless to me.
Why do I view this as art as opposed to the pervy upskirt shots, and how does it compare/contrast to the work of someone like Robert Mapplethorpe?
It doesn't seem like his intent was to get some cheap thrills. It seems like his motivation was to create something artistic, and I guess that makes a huge difference between this & the pervy upskirt shots. As for Mapplethorpe, these are shots taken of women doing what they would be doing, but unaware that they were being photographed. I don't like it, but I feel that what Mapplethorpe did was worse. He paid homeless people to pose for his pics where the poses involved one urinating into the mouth of another. He took advantage of their desperation to get them to do something they wouldn't typically do. I'd actually be more comfortable if they were doing these things on their own initiative & he captured the moment unaware to them.
This has forced me to ask a lot of uncomfortable questions and examine my own heart & emotions. If that ain't art, I don't know what is.
Well spoken.
Nicely put +Jake Kern. I don't see it as cheap titillation either.
Perhaps if the photographer had been clean cut and in a suit? Or better yet, a middle aged mother?
Ooh… +Shawna Mac just took the conversation to 11…
The contrast of projecting are you alluding too +Shawna Mac ?
lol +Shawna Mac +Jake Kern
In the end, I think for me it isn't about the work or the photographer … it goes back to the sense of entitlement, of ownership & privacy. And I'm not making any statements, here, either, merely still asking a lot of questions.
And not to go off on yet another tangent (ha), but it also brings to mind the notion of whether or not to separate the art from the artist and does anyone even care to. I can't articulate it, but all of these things – to me – are connected and things I have been musing about on my own, anyway.
+Shawna Mac when you said, "or better yet, a middle aged mother?" I immediately thought of Sally Mann. But, I digress. 🙂
Artist? Yes.
Peeping Tom? Very possibly.
I don't think it is an either or question. He's clearly very talented. There are huge teams of people and an entire artist culture trying to develop Photoshop filters or get their film shots to do the same things. His cameras alone are works of art.
The question of is he some kind of deviant causing harm in his community is definitely legitimate as he was arrested several times. I'm not a court of law and keep in mind that this man spent 20 years taking photographs every day everywhere. We could also ask why is the media focusing on the shots of women? It seems as if he captured other subjects in addition to these public pool photographs.
Part of me thinks that it's odd to point the finger while collecting clicks on your website. …and his friend is a jerk and a thief.
I felt the article was a little skewed Luis. Hence why I was looking for more background info on him.
XD When I said middle aged mom, I meant me. I take pics of people all the time without asking and I've never had anyone tell me 'no.' And quite frequently it's pictures of children I don't know, and sometimes their parents will try to get them to pose purposely, so I can take their picture, even at the beach. If I was a creepy old man in a trench coat, they'd probably call the cops instead. I've even been at a playground taking pics of kids in the pool and no one minded, on the same day some guy got kicked out for just standing there and watching. My intentions are definitely not perverted and I'm not breaking any law, and I certainly would destroy the pictures if the parents asked.
If Tichy was breaking the law he certainly deserves punishment, but I don't see anything about convictions in the article and no mention of these pictures being used for a spank bank. We have a dirty old man in the neighbourhood here (flasher,) the cops grab him every chance they get, but he doesn't get much time. I'm sure if Tichy was guilty he'd have been sent to prison quickly enough and the article would have mentioned it.
I've been pulled up by mum's in playgrounds for taking pictures of my own son +Shawna Mac It got lynch mob like real quick. In the end I had to spell it out to them that I was allowed to take pictures of my own son. I even showed them the pictures. I'm never keen to tar someone on an article on a site that doesn't really tell me anything except the basics.
I do shoot street photography but I'm very mindful of people, and so it makes me a not very good street shooter. Luckily for me I like buildings and shoot with models.
Wow, that is so such an awful experience +Andrew Clifton-Brown .
+Andrew Clifton-Brown, I'm really sorry you had to experience that. We've bought into this "Stranger Danger" BS, and a lot of people are being hurt in the process.
I think there's a difference between the question "does/would this make me feel uncomfortable" and the question "is it ok for someone to do this". Just because it might feel creepy to us, that doesn't mean he hasn't got a right to take and use these photos. If the women were in a place where they're visible to the general public then to my mind that's fair game.
Like +Shawna Mac, I'm a middle-aged woman who can get away with taking photos when I'm out and about and people don't normally even notice, I look harmless and I just ambush people and snap quietly. I treat them just as I'd treat buildings or flowers – if they're there and they look interesting, I shoot.
+Scott Cramer I would definitively call it "outsider art"…
It wasn't great +Luis Roca. My natural reaction to being surrounded by a group of really hostile and irrational people would have been a little different but for the fact it was a kids playground and my son was present. Annoyingly after I had taken a few shots of Joseph, he disappeared, and when the main idiot asked me where my son was, I pointed over to the slide he'd just been on and he wasn't there! He came back about a minute later and after about a further ten minutes they left me alone. What was really galling was that the idiot woman who kept trying to excuse her behaviour began every sentence with '….I'm not being funny…' and her partner clearly thought she was being a lunatic but laughed along with her.
It is the way of it now +Jake Kern eh?
Agreed +Meirav M.. My friend +Margot M loves to shoot street and she gets some absolutely wonderful street shots. I really dig her composition. She can get away with this and can get up into peoples lives. As a guy with a beard and a big camera, people do not like me to do it. I've had some real crap of people and that is only when I am shooting half hearted street shots.
+Edouard E, and extremely apt name!
+Andrew Clifton-Brown though i like better the french version of this artistic creation way: "Art brut"