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.

> A good photo looks interesting or has something interesting in it or comes with some interesting context.

To my eye, these photos have all three of those things.

You don't have to like them yourself, but it seems a bit much to imply that they are objectively without value as art.

> 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.