I'm a photographer and I'll be honest, I clicked on these fully expecting to not like them (usually when people say "look at these photos, they look like terrible photos taken with a bad camera until you, like, get it, man" what they really mean is that the photographer knew the right pretentious people at the right time in history)...
... but I actually like them. I wish I could explain why; he's doing some clever stuff here. Some of it is kinda pervy and it feels like TMI, but he's at least being clever. There are a few photos that feel like you are voyeuristically peeking through time, the defects in the photos are like peeking through bushes to see something interesting. But mostly I can't explain why I like it. I just do.
I don't have a professional eye but I'll try to explain why I like one of the photos, the one identified as Photo 20, in which there are two sunbathers, the one on the right flirtatiously peering at the camera. I like the way that their images are just barely recognizable as such but they still look like real people in a candid moment. The resolution is so poor can't even see where the second woman's back ends and where the background begins. But with just a hint you can make out a smile and a sparkling eye. It's similar to the way a clever caricature captures the essence of the subject with a few strokes. Are there flowers in their hair? A checkered blanket? The mind's eye starts to fill in the details as when reading a novel. You can't make out anything clearly but it still feels there's a whole story that the viewer is being invited to share in.
I don't think I can explain to you by showing an example. Also, I type this on a phone and don't have access to my collection.
A good photo looks interesting or has something interesting in it or comes with some interesting context.
These are more or less random photos taken with a bad camera. That's it.
Now, I don't say you need good camera for good photos. You can make interesting photos with any camera. And you can also use bad camera for interesting effect.
But, again, these photos don't show any kind of plan, thought, deliberation, interesting subject, context, technique, nothing.
To each their own opinion I guess, but these photos are more than just random shots taken with a bad camera. Not all of them are especially good but there is a conscious intent of showing us the world through a slightly novel perspective and in some of the shots, with quite a visually poetic effect (the dancing feet are one good example).
Knowing the context and the work he must have put into building the camera, maintaining it and later developing his shots under the circumstances he worked with also helps. What I definitely don't see here is just a bunch of bad photos taken with a bad camera. I'd hardly call a homemade camera as simply bad, even imperfect it merits some respect.
I'd say they at least fit Susan Sontag's loose definition of photography showing others something novel.
> You don't have to like them yourself, but it seems a bit much to imply that they are objectively without value as art.
There is nothing objective about art anyway.
I agree with you, though. There is something in these. Some kind of motion. Some kind of primitive, wild instincts as well. As if a bear had found a camera, and he were more interested by ladies than about anything else.
A good photo does not need to be interesting, since it doesn't need to appeal to intellect to be good. A photo can be good just by provoking an emotional reaction in the viewer.
