Well, I took a look, they are just bad photos to me. I could not find any redeeming quality.
... 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.
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 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.
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.
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.
I mean... I don't know if I'd take perfect pictures with such equipment, especially not if I'm trying to do it secretly.