Lomography: Pop culture's photography fad
"Don't think, just shoot."
That’s the moto of Lomography. To me, Lomography is a concept created to sell overpriced cameras to people who are tricked into believing that the only way to achieve effects in photography is with the ubiquitous Lomo-cam. Catchy taglines, quirky gimmicks, and an internet portal are all that was needed to create the Lomo-buzz and commoditize this product to sell to the world. But what’s the point? We live in an age where everybody thinks they are a photographer, or a writer (myself included), or a DJ, thanks to gadgets, gizmos, and software.
The digital age has presented us with shortcuts. These shortcuts sometimes undermine the hard work of professionals. Look at the current DJ scene: Anyone with a laptop and a collection of MP3s is now considered a DJ. Being cynical will get me nowhere; I have to move with the times.
And so back to the Lomo. The LC-A camera was where it all began, originally in Russia, but then discovered by Austrian students in an old, secondhand camera shop. They took pictures of a trip around Prague and when they developed the film they appreciated how unconventional the pictures looked. The photos were rugged, unfocused, raw. The Lomographic Society was then founded in Vienna and the fad began to spread. When the original Russian production plant stopped making the camera, the students persuaded the factory to begin production again.
The students of this fable are business-minded, of course, and the Lomo camera began production once more, but under Austrian copyright, this time with inflated prices and a global marketing strategy based around a website.
I see the Lomo as nothing more than a fashion accessory, and I’m amazed that people look at in the same way as they do other forms of photography. People are spending ludicrous amounts of money ($200 for the Lomo Kompakt Automat 35mm Camera) on repackaged artifacts from the Soviet Union.
The pictures themselves present very little substance. There seems to be a general train of though that if a picture is taken with an effect then it must have value, it must be artistic. If I take a picture of a Coke bottle with my Olympus C-370 then nobody cares, but snap with a fisheye lens, or split the picture into four, eight, twelve, or sixteen sections and suddenly it has meaning and depth. These are the ten rules of Lomography:
- Take your LOMO everywhere you go and whenever you go.
- Use it any time – day or night.
- Lomography is not an interference in your life, but a part of it.
- Shoot from the hip.
- Approach the objects of your lomographic desire as close as possible.
- Don't think.
- Be fast.
- You don't have to know beforehand what you've captured on film.
- You don't have to know afterwards, either.
- Don't worry about the rules.
What these rules echo is that Lomography is a pointless activity that has no real value. Take a look at the official Lomo store. You see the number of products they sell? Each with a different gimmick. The Lomo is meant to be something close to revolutionary, but really it’s just marketed in such a way that makes it look so. The defects in the Lomo-cams are just hype. The effects can be achieved with much cheaper, non-Lomo cameras.
Furthermore, Lomo is not unique. It has no unique qualities. But it’s fed into the consumer cycle and lapped up like Tamagotchis were. And what also bugs me is this elitist community of Lomographers who share their photos with each other and act like they are doing something nobody else can do.
Looking at the effects create by Lomo-cams, while there is nothing wrong with the pictures produced, what do they really say? All they say, to me at least, is that the effect is more important than the meaning behind the image, which, again to me, undermines all possible value an image might have. I can't help but feel that Lomo-fanatics are more interested in using their camera than actually taking pictures.
“Don’t think, just shoot.” I think that actually sums it up pretty good. Or perhaps it should be: “Don’t think, just spend.”
Techno' tags: Lomo, Lomography, Pop culture, Photography
sigh
Us real photographers have been thinking this for a long time, but it proves that you can sell anything on tah intaweb these days.
One of us is addicted to the stuff, she needs help!
Ahh…..MP3s and DJ software made me the man I am today…
Don't even get me started on mp3 dj's, pfft it's vinyl all the way baby!
lets face it,it's not the same when you see a dj walking in with a fanny pack of cd's. I prefer 2 steal boxes that weigh 15 kilos each and require a small child to help me rest them on
lol.. yeah daniel is right… she totally needs help… i think she's gonna starve to death buying lomo cams! :P
My most prized possession: My dad's Asahi Pentax ME from 1977. Not much of a landscape camera but portraits came out beautifully.
I went to USC film school when we still had to track down Super 8 and paid $10 a roll for minutes of itsy bitsy strip of film which we spliced and taped back together by hand. So, yeah, I'm old school when it comes to photography. :)
Although I am mildly addicted to moblogging via my crappy ass phone camera…
Yeah I know you think my lomographs suck and I do too… But how can you assume that the whole lomo fanatics are as bad? What about this one for example? LINK
Yeah so what if you could have taken that with a normal cam and photoshopped it but then what's the point? it's all about photo manipulation anyways these days.. the best thing about lomo is that you don't need computer you don't need photoshop it comes out like that if you really know how to work it. but then again if you don't appreciate the lomo in the first place then i can't convince you.
I appreciate that you've tried to convince me, but that picture just strengthens my feeling. Lomo is an expensive toy. How many effects do you need to take a picture of somebody's feet? It's just a marketing ploy Kitty. Why does photography have to be about effects and zany colors and stuff that detracts from the actual image?
Who says it's all about photo manipulation these days? I remember seeing fisheye images in skateboarding magazines more than 10 years ago. This is nothing new, but it's just more branded now.
It's just a fad. And when say it's all about photo manipulation, what do you mean? Where is it all about manipulation?
Matt
Magazines, newspapers, websites.. Even professional photographers still have to photoshop their photos. You don't photoshop lomos. Well I do to mine coz I suck but great ones are great without having to be photoshopped. But then again my definition of great and urs are different so i'm gonna shut up now.
Yes but touching a photo up is not the same as adding random effects for the sake of it. And I don't believe that there is a single newspaper that would use a photo like the one you posted a link to other than as a novelty.
Photo manipulation in the media usually adds something to the image, making it more desirable in some way, and therefore more relevant for its purpose. Lomography is different; it has no purpose.
You don't Photoshop Lomos because you're working under the assumption that needless effects and gimmicks (defects) are artistic.
Kitty eats way too much anyway. She should buy more Lomo stuff. Yesterday she had BK (burger king, not the magazine) and today it was Pringles. With her new haircut, her face looks like a Lomo fisheye shot. Maybe she's been eating her cameras too?
Shut it Greg. You're annoying me enough already in real life I don't want you following me around the cyberspace also. Shoo you French loong.
personally i like the photo kitty posted.. maybe the fact that it means nothing means something? that probably sounds pretensious but anyway i was thinking this whole debate could be applied to art generally.. some people think damian hurst and the cohen brothers are art and others believe it should be traditional watercolour paintings.. i guess the attraction of Lomo (and photoshop) is that you can make a photo your own – who cares if nobody else gets it? :)
I think Lomo is like painting with numbers, and actually it's marketed like that. Everyone can do it, and doing it doesn't make you special, but it's precisely this that, paradoxically, is the reason why Lomographers are made to believe they are special. It's a business, and as such it's just another capitalist conspiracy.
If you go to Russia you can pick up a Lomo for a fraction of the price, but the Austrians have control over the export of the cameras, and so effectively when you buy a camera outside of Russia you pay for the privilege of joining the Society.
To Vanalli: I don't see how touching up a photo is better than adding effects. Touching up through photoshop to me is cheating, and it doesn't mean anything other than the fact that your picture wasn't pretty enough.
"And I don’t believe that there is a single newspaper that would use a photo like the one you posted a link to other than as a novelty."
Since when does a good photo constitute as one that could be published in a newspaper? Based on your logic, I could take a photo of Paris Hilton picking her nose on my camera phone and call it a masterpiece..
To The Lost Boy: I think we can all agree that the cameras are overpriced, but whether or not the photos have 'meaning' isn't dependent on the camera being used, but on the photo itself. And how the effects retract from the meaning of the photo is a mystery to me. Photography is an art that anyone can take on, is subjective, and has no rules as to what a good photo should or shouldn’t feature. It doesn’t always have to be logical, and it doesn’t always have to make sense.
Sorry, but you're just coming off as another photographer who's all butthurt because the kid down the street posted their 'photography' on flickr. People of various backgrounds and different levels of experience and ability are sharing their thoughts and their art. To me, that’s an amazing thing and probably the main reason I enjoy using the internet so much. Only a silly elitist would see this as something that's "undermining the hard work of professionals".