This is my very first entry to this blog which will be long and argumentative. I intended this blog to be a medium - informal and fun - to post all my interest in photography in general. However, after I created this account, I happened to bump into an article that held deep interest in me. I would like to have a discussion about it and therefore, would make my very first article to be more dense than I intended this blog to be.
It is an article from 2002 entitled Why I Don't Like LOMOgraphy that is written in a personal website. I would like to express some of my points of view regarding this.
When creating this blog, there were few choices in my head between the words "Lomography, Analogue Photography, or Photography" in the title. It took me only brief seconds to know the right word/s. This has happened before I have read Alfred's article Why I Don't Like LOMOgraphy.
I can safely divide Alfred's main arguments into two: Lomography as an entity in the society and Lomography as an art. Because I have been involved in the society much longer than in the art of photography, it will be easier for me to deal with the earlier one first.
It is sufficed to say that Alfred feels that Lomography (as an entity) is a "capitalist conspiracy" where it manipulates their customers through cult marketing and has quickly been approaching to be a monopolist. He also argues that Lomography sells products and doubtfully any art.
Lomography or perhaps Lomography Society International (LSI) is an entity and a profit seeking one. So far as I'm aware of, LSI itself never tried to conceal this identity. Thus, this puts Alfred's argument of LSI in the category of business/marketing ethics.
My point is, if he is in question about LSI because of its marketing manipulation, then he is also likely to be in question to many other companies in this world. One example that has passed my mind is Apple. It had a media campaign of Mac vs PC where it tried to as if plants an image through its TV commercial where Mac is the "cool" guy and PC is the "boring" corporate man. I feel there is hardly any difference between the LSI and Apple in this matter. They both simply want to differentiate themselves. It has become far too common modern marketing techniques. Are these techniques socially acceptable?
To discuss about that, it will definitely open up another lengthy argument. Even between business ethics scholars, these debates are still strong and continuing. But in the modern society, it is practically impossible to defy modern marketing. If you defy modern marketing, that means you defy shopping at large-chain grocery stores, eating at big franchised outlets, or even buying factory-made cars. Customers are given a choice, to shop at the nearest, easy-to-go, no-hassle Wal-Mart or drive several more kilometers to find a local family-operated small grocery shop. Similarly, I have to admit, LSI has brought convenience and easy-access to the almost diminishing world of analogue photography. For profits or not, it still gives a positive contribution to the world of photography: mass-exposing (especially the young people) to this branch of art - photography.
However, Alfred then questions this exposure, whether it is a good exposure or a bad exposure. I am far more incapacitated to talk about this topic than the earlier one due to my very limited experience in lomography and in photography-outside-lomography.
I only know several general things. Art has always been a blur. It is not an exact science and that is the beauty of it. I only found a paradox in Alfred's argument. He at first argued that "good Lomographs obey traditional photographical rules... Bad Lomographs however cannot be made better by calling them art by decree." Later, he also had problems with Lomography as it has far too many rules to consider what as lomographs. "It needs to be unsharp... abstractish... needs to have strong colors." It seems to me rather unjust to have such a complaint while he also builds tight rules around what is considered photography. The irony stays with me.
I tend to have a simple mind over this. Our understanding of art has always evolved, because art itself is about ambiguity, expression and beauty. I can only imagine that photography would not be considered an art during Renaissance period.
It is an article from 2002 entitled Why I Don't Like LOMOgraphy that is written in a personal website. I would like to express some of my points of view regarding this.
When creating this blog, there were few choices in my head between the words "Lomography, Analogue Photography, or Photography" in the title. It took me only brief seconds to know the right word/s. This has happened before I have read Alfred's article Why I Don't Like LOMOgraphy.
I can safely divide Alfred's main arguments into two: Lomography as an entity in the society and Lomography as an art. Because I have been involved in the society much longer than in the art of photography, it will be easier for me to deal with the earlier one first.
It is sufficed to say that Alfred feels that Lomography (as an entity) is a "capitalist conspiracy" where it manipulates their customers through cult marketing and has quickly been approaching to be a monopolist. He also argues that Lomography sells products and doubtfully any art.
Lomography or perhaps Lomography Society International (LSI) is an entity and a profit seeking one. So far as I'm aware of, LSI itself never tried to conceal this identity. Thus, this puts Alfred's argument of LSI in the category of business/marketing ethics.
My point is, if he is in question about LSI because of its marketing manipulation, then he is also likely to be in question to many other companies in this world. One example that has passed my mind is Apple. It had a media campaign of Mac vs PC where it tried to as if plants an image through its TV commercial where Mac is the "cool" guy and PC is the "boring" corporate man. I feel there is hardly any difference between the LSI and Apple in this matter. They both simply want to differentiate themselves. It has become far too common modern marketing techniques. Are these techniques socially acceptable?
To discuss about that, it will definitely open up another lengthy argument. Even between business ethics scholars, these debates are still strong and continuing. But in the modern society, it is practically impossible to defy modern marketing. If you defy modern marketing, that means you defy shopping at large-chain grocery stores, eating at big franchised outlets, or even buying factory-made cars. Customers are given a choice, to shop at the nearest, easy-to-go, no-hassle Wal-Mart or drive several more kilometers to find a local family-operated small grocery shop. Similarly, I have to admit, LSI has brought convenience and easy-access to the almost diminishing world of analogue photography. For profits or not, it still gives a positive contribution to the world of photography: mass-exposing (especially the young people) to this branch of art - photography.
However, Alfred then questions this exposure, whether it is a good exposure or a bad exposure. I am far more incapacitated to talk about this topic than the earlier one due to my very limited experience in lomography and in photography-outside-lomography.
I only know several general things. Art has always been a blur. It is not an exact science and that is the beauty of it. I only found a paradox in Alfred's argument. He at first argued that "good Lomographs obey traditional photographical rules... Bad Lomographs however cannot be made better by calling them art by decree." Later, he also had problems with Lomography as it has far too many rules to consider what as lomographs. "It needs to be unsharp... abstractish... needs to have strong colors." It seems to me rather unjust to have such a complaint while he also builds tight rules around what is considered photography. The irony stays with me.
I tend to have a simple mind over this. Our understanding of art has always evolved, because art itself is about ambiguity, expression and beauty. I can only imagine that photography would not be considered an art during Renaissance period.
great write up, well thought of.
ReplyDelete