Art vs Equipment

[outfitter]

I find Tichy's work evocative and wonderful in ways that purely technical excellence could not convey. In this man's hands a cardboard camera is a better tool than a Leica.

http://www.icp.org/site/c.dnJGKJNsFqG/b.5708951/k.9236/Miroslav_Tichy.htm

What do you think?

 

[semilog]

I think he's an obviously talented creep.

 

[Paul T.]

Terrific link. Thanks very much.

I've been reading about Outsider artists recently... he's not exactly one, too knowing for that, but even that cardboard camera looks like a 30s collage.

Can't help wondering how he'd get on, photographing young girls in London or Minnesota, though!

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

I like it. He reminds me of Henry Darger.

Better than a Leica? Different, perhaps. Very successful in this context, to be sure.

EDIT Whoa, just realized that's at ICP! I might be able to go this week...I'm going to be in the city.

 

[Charlie Lemay]

Very inspiring work!

I'm not sure it's very useful to draw the conclusion that equipment doesn't matter. It certainly does in this case. Without this makeshift camera, the lack of image quality and the level of personal vision would have been substantially different. I'm not sure it's useful to say certain work is "better" than other work, when the work reaches a above the average level of craft and artistic vision. It's more likely we are just stating what we prefer. There are many roads to the top of the mountain. Love of equipment and artistic vision art not mutually exclusive. You can experience both. Some artists need limits to push against to summon their creative impulse. If nobody imposes them, they make their own (ie: Adams' prohibition against cropping). It's when we believe those limits are absolute that we fall from grace.

Back in 2002, I renewed my love affair with Leica rangefinders and many other cameras. Thanks to credit, I have been able to buy, and shoot for a while with many exotic lenses and cameras. After all these years, I think I've finally settled on what I'm going to keep. Of course I have run up a large debt in this process, but if I had not done so I would not have had the incentive to go out and make images over and over again every week. I value my experience in making this work as one of the great pleasures of this life. Without my lust for equipment, I doubt I would ever have opened that doorway.

So I guess it's OK to admire someone with one lens and one camera, but not at the cost of ignoring the virtues of access to many.

I'm including one of my favorite images. It's the first time I post it. Shot in 2008 with a Canon 5D and a Leica 80mm f1.4 R lens with adapter.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I completely agree with Charlie. Any artist uses the equipment that (a) suits his/her vision and (b) that s/he can afford. Tichy's cameras wouldn't have suited Ansel Adams or Sebastiao Salgado.

@Semilog: certainly he's obviously talented, but why do you call him a creep?

Cheers,

R.

 

[jsrockit]

Very inspiring work!

I'm not sure it's very useful to draw the conclusion that equipment doesn't matter. It certainly does in this case. Without this makeshift camera, the lack of image quality and the level of personal vision would have been substantially different.

I agree. Sometimes it isn't the tool... but sometimes it is the tool.

 

[outfitter]

I agree. Sometimes it isn't the tool... but sometimes it is the tool.

Just to clarify I said "in Tichy's hands". to wit it was easier to get the effect he wanted with his cardboard camera than a modern camera. I was not suggesting that anyone could become a great artist by throwing away their Lecia and building a cardboard camera.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I agree. Sometimes it isn't the tool... but sometimes it is the tool.[/QUOTE]

And knowing which tool to use, and how to use the tool you choose...

@ Outfitter, yes, I think you made that clear, but equally, the header of the thread sets up a counter-expectation. If there is one thing I have learned in 35 years of teaching and journalism it is that people often hear/read what they want or expect to hear/read, rather than what you actually say.

Cheers,

R.

 

[semilog]

I call him a creep because I find many of his photographs of women -- especially the ones obtained "surreptitiously" to be stalkerish and creepy.

 

[Charlie Lemay]

I agree with Roger. The headline does seem to be calling for the kind of discussion that has developed.

 

[dap]

@Semilog: certainly he's obviously talented, but why do you call him a creep?

Cheers,

R.

I'd hate to speak for Semilog, but any guy who hangs out at the local public swimming pool and sneaks around taking photos of young women's legs and asses has officially attained full fledged creep status in my book.

 

[Philly]

... Any artist uses the equipment that (a) suits his/her vision and (b) that s/he can afford...

I can't think why you always have to bring cost into the equation?

You made a perfectly valid statement until you reached the (b).

Good quality cameras and lenses are within the reach of anybody.
I have never heard anyone say that they couldn't afford to take good photos.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Well, Philly, I don't use equipment I can't afford, so there's quite a lot of kit I can't afford. Do you buy cameras you can't afford? If you do, you're a fool.

I'm sure there are plenty of other people on RFF who can't afford the equipment they really want, and which would therefore give them better pictures, because it's always easier to get good pictures with the equipment you're happy with. Certainly, most of the professional artists I know are constantly faced with financial constraints. So, come to think of it, are most professional photographers. For the most part it's rich amateurs who can afford to be disdainful about the money.

Maybe I'm not as rich as you and therefore money impinges upon my consciousness more. There's a story about George Bernard Shaw saying to Henry Ford, "There, Mr. Ford, is the difference between us. You think only of art, and I think only of money."

Cheers,

R.

 

[Philly]

Well, Philly, I don't use equipment I can't afford, so there's quite a lot of kit I can't afford.

Well already owning Leica MP, M8, M8.2 and M9 I'm not sure what else you lack and would it make you a better artist if you had it?

Do you buy cameras you can't afford? If you do, you're a fool.

No. So I am not.

For the most part it's rich amateurs who can afford to be disdainful about the money.

My only disdain is for expensive equipment that is beyond the "quality threshold" for 99% of us.

 

[ernstk]

I can't think why you always have to bring cost into the equation?

You made a perfectly valid statement until you reached the (b).

Good quality cameras and lenses are within the reach of anybody.
I have never heard anyone say that they couldn't afford to take good photos.

I agree with Roger. My 'vision' is to have a digital back for my Hasselblad SWC. I want this more than anything, in terms of what it can do for my photographic vision. However, at the moment, it is unobtainable financially for me, so point b) in Roger's comment is totally accurate.

Ernst

 

[Calzone]

I was invited to a reception and the opening of this show. At ICP they have interesting shows and curation.

This artist was a outsider that was known and familiar in his own community. There is an obvious passion/obsessive quality to his work, but there is also a primative element that has its own asthetic. In the way distant past, I did some pinhole photography, and I was reminded of that time in my own work.

As far as calling him a creep: at the opening, I told my girlfriend the guy is definitly a butt-man (see the show-- lots of butt shots--LOL). What I found so interesting is that all the pictures of young girls that seem inappropriate to us today seem to be rather innocent in his time/community. It seems like we put a modern context and frame around this body of work.

Calzone

 

[Philly]

I agree with Roger. My 'vision' is to have a digital back for my Hasselblad SWC. I want this more than anything, in terms of what it can do for my photographic vision. However, at the moment, it is unobtainable financially for me, so point b) in Roger's comment is totally accurate.

Ernst

Will it make you a better artist?
I doubt it, though it would fill out your signature gear list nicely.

 

[Chris101]

Oh that Tichy!

I've heard the "creep" moniker used for other photographers, like Ralph Gibson and this relatively unknown photographer.

So it doesn't matter what equipment one uses, it's that if you photograph women, then you are open to being labeled a creep. Someone should write a song about it.

 

[taxi38]

there are plenty of butt shots because the owner of the butt has no idea whats going on ,unless shes carrying a mirror.Its the secrecy that makes this man a creep,. but I would also include in the creep stakes all those telephoto users and especially all you hip shooters out there,...what a sad bunch.
As for that terrific camera,what a beautiful object.I would like to know whether the camera dictated the style of the image or the camera was constructed in this way to deliberatly take photos that looked like these.
As for buying cameras that one can or cannot afford the one great advance that digital has invented is that photography is now free.So if you are poverty stricken then all you need to do is go out and steal a nice expensive digital camera.Now if I was in that position I would definately target any of those hapless individuals who have bought an M9 and have then posted a question asking what their first lens should be.Not only should this be considered a moral necesity but also a redistribution of wealth and a justifiable creative act.Im sure an arts council grant could be obtained if the application was worded correctly to cover any expenses incurred.