Photography trends: Hipstamatic
Everyone has a camera and most of us know how to use it. Photography is no longer exclusive to those who’ve invested time and money; photography belongs to everyone and is used, applied and appreciated in a multitude of formats. We’ve looked at some of the trends in mainstream photography this year so far…
On the digital front, we’ve witnessed the growth of apps such as Hipstamatic for the iPhone and Vignette for Android, which have infiltrated social networks and image sharing sites alike. On the analogue side, we’ve seen the rise of the Impossible Project, Lomography and the return of Polaroid.
We asked two photographers to discuss the popular app, Hipstamatic:
Christa Holka
who works mainly within the digital medium and is thrilled by the prospects and developments in technology.
Rhiannon Adam
who shoots almost exclusively on expired Polaroid and is interested in the pure and uncompromising images created with instant film.The two talked it out over the course of 48 hours on Google Wave. We’ve had a go at editing their conversation to present to you a condensed version of their heated debate in which no one really managed to convince the other and the conversation went from phone apps and technology to art, education and vinyl but where Christa argues for the use of Hipstamatic and digital imagery as another valid form of expression and art, and where Rhiannon defends the original methodologies and the use of film that is threatened by extinction due to the prevalence of digital…
Christa, Rhiannon, you’re live on Google Wave. Tell us your thoughts on Hipstamatic.
Christa
: I’m pretty much addicted to the Hipstamatic app for iPhone. To be sure, I also love the original Holga and Polaroid it is trying to imitate, but hey guess what, this is the digital age and we like it fast, instantaneous, we want to put it on Facebook 20 seconds after we make the photo. We also like free, the free freedom of the Internet. I know the argument for the real thing, but what about making room for this new thing? It’s the time we live in. We either surrender to change or get made obsolete fighting it…
Rhiannon
: For me, it’s like a slap in the face.
When the world is becoming more and more ephemeral, and as Facebook is becoming the only way to get in touch with people, no one seems bothered that the “original” is lost, that the “real thing” is ceasing to exist.
I wouldn’t care about Hipstamatic if it wasn’t trying to imitate a real thing, and by imitating it, is killing it. If it were a nice little sideline, a gimmick that had no consequence to me, and my work, then I wouldn’t care.
I don’t think real pictures are redundant or obsolete- and they certainly won’t be when your hard drive crashes, and I’m sitting smug with my real pictures, letters and real wood furniture.
Christa
: Look, the Hipstamatic app isn’t taking anything away from your deep analogue knowledge of film and the creative things you do with it.
I’m saying they’re just two totally different things. In fact, it should make you feel secure about the merits and amazingness of film just by the fact that the Hipstamatic is always just trying to imitate an original.
In no way do I think the Hipstamatic could ever replace analogue film, the process of developing film, the waiting time from when you click the exposure and when you actually hold the tangible print in your hands, no way! There’s no replacement for that. However, there is the idea that it’s just something else.
Rhiannon
: Can I just point out that it is extremely ironic that I am a Polaroid photographer: instant photography and you are talking about how I am involved in the slow process of film? That’s not me; I am all about the instant. That’s exactly what defines it. I get a finished photo seconds after I shoot and I bet that most digital photographers can’t say the same. As I mentioned before the focus has changed from creating in camera, to editing in post. Just like Hipstamatic…
Christa
: I am embracing the idea that yes, everyone is a photographer. Every Tom Dick and Harry can take a picture. Why not make it easy for them? Do you feel threatened by that? I don’t. I don’t feel threatened because I know I am a trained, experienced photographer and artist and that that is the difference. It makes me work harder, think more about the images I put out and I like that challenge of being like, yea everyone can take a picture, but why are my pictures different from that person who uses only a point and shoot, only their mobile phone, etc.
Rhiannon
: I think digital lacks that kind of poetry. I wouldn’t call Hipstamatic photography, when I define photography as the recording of time. It’s a sign of the times, yes, but the way each picture turns out?
Christa
: There is romance for me in this instantaneousness of it, in this conversation back and forth that I can have with people all over the world, yes, instantaneously. I am so into this digital life and I am so rolling with all the possibilities it has already created and continues to offer. I can say that yes I kind of need this as much as you need all that slow romance with film and Polaroids.
I also take issue with you saying that digital can’t be art or Hipstamatic can’t be art, for that matter. Art isn’t just the object, isn’t just the tangible thing, it’s very much the idea, the process and so much more than the image. I have a friend, Elly Clarke, who made an amazing photographic series of photos she made in India all on her Sony Ericsson mobile phone. I think that is an amazing project, digital, and yes on a shitty mobile phone. Would you say that her project isn’t capital “A” Art?
Rhiannon
: As for Elly, yes I do know her. I would say the concept is art, but I wouldn’t call the photos “photography”, or at least not in the sense that I am trying to explain… I don’t think that is the point of her project. Yes, she is recording images, but I think that is more of a conceptual project to do with the reception of those images.
In a photographic sense and artistic sense, what possible merit could a computer algorithm applied to a bad phone picture have on the art or photographic world? It’s no great shakes…. It’s nothing new really. It’s nothing we haven’t seen before, and Hipstamatic certainly has not gotten to a point where it could accurately emulate film – I actually disagree with you, Christa, that digital is as good, or equal to film.
Christa
: I respect your belief that art is what you say it is, but I also resent you telling me that art cannot be made by something like the Hipstamatic.
This is all going in the direction of: you feel threatened. You keep saying that you’re afraid digital is going to make film disappear. I don’t know, think about vinyl. It’s still here. What about that?
Rhiannon
: If you look at stats to see what vinyl is available versus what vinyl was available in its heyday, then you would see why vinyl enthusiasts bemoaned CDs!
Christa
: yes, I see, you are vinyl, and I am so excited by the invention of mp3s!
Rhiannon
: I feel threatened by the death of the medium I love. Like I wail at the death of letters, and loathe the rise of text speak. I’m a audited, a born machine breaker… Digital is great for what it’s good for, and what it is not good for is what my photography is about- making images into objects. Earlier you said you would have lots of your images on the net if your hard drive crashed, me too- the difference being that if my originals died, the ones on the internet may as well vanish too- they wouldn’t be real anymore. There would be no original in a shoe box… for me there is no image without an original, regardless of whether pixels exist in its place. The essence of that image has gone. Hence why I never sell originals, ever.
Christa
: Here again is a big point where we disagree, the idea of “the real.” At this stage in the history of the world, I really don’t know what “real” is and I don’t think anyone can tell me, nor am I that concerned with this concept.
Rhiannon
: Whether it happens now, or in two years time, Polaroid will completely die out because it has been usurped by inferior technology that tries to imitate it, and because people have gotten lazy about taking pictures. How many photographers do you see composing photos without even looking through the viewfinder- holding cameras above their heads? To me, that isn’t “photography” in the skilled sense. There is a difference between amateur and pro photography- you agree, I know.
Christa
: Maybe or maybe not… I’m sure people have said that about vinyl records and they are definitely not going anywhere soon. But if you think about what’s happened to Kodak as a company– they said ‘we will never go digital’ and look what’s happened to them? I think fighting technology and change is futile and ultimately self-destructive.
“… then what is the difference between what I do, and Hipstamatic or Poladroid?”
First, Rhiannon, I’ve said this over and over and over again in this thread: EVERYTHING. These two things are not the same!
Rhiannon
: Hipstamatic is fun, but that is it- I do see it as entirely worthless as a creative medium- what does it do any different than importing a pic into Photoshop and then playing with it to create an x-pro effect? You have been able to do that for 10 years and that has never set the world alight with it’s artistic genius, so why would this?
I believe art could be made from digital phone pictures, yes, but Hipstamatic, no.
Christa
: Disagree. Again, not having an argument about what is Art. I don’t believe this is an institution that declares one thing art and the other thing Art. Nor do I believe there is an Art Police. And if there is Art Police, well I am a law breaker.
Rhiannon
: It’s just sad that digital can’t accept it’s digital and wants to encroach on analogue too. Analogue never tried to be digital, why does digital insist on trying to imitate analogue? Like, for example, why is there a “film grain” filter on Photoshop – why bother? If you want film, shoot film, if you don’t want film, shoot digital.
Christa
: Disagree. I don’t think digital wants to be anything but what it is.
Rhiannon
: And it copies film effects why? Because somehow, there is the notion that something that invokes film is somehow organic, unpredictable and romantic. If it is not an organic process, why try to invoke one?
Christa
: why not?
Rhiannon
: For me, daily I get two types of comments:
1. “Wow what’s that, that’s an old camera- can you still get film for that” (yes, what a surprise, on eBay)
2. “Wow how did you get your Hipstamatic to come up with those cool colours?” or “What app is that?”
Christa
: Again, I say: Who cares what people think? Isn’t’ it enough to know yourself what you’ve done? I mean do you need to prove something? That’s cool if you do, I don’t get it though.
Rhiannon
: What is real is what is held in your hands….
Christa
: Ummm, I don’t think that thing your hands is any more real than the thought I am having in my head right now. Do you?
Rhiannon
: Why bother taking images then at all, digital or otherwise if we can just imagine things. Why would it matter if we were blind?
Christa
: Good point. One of my favourite cousins who spent many years in AA recovering from alcoholism once said to me as we stared out at a breathtaking view of the ocean, he said, “Look at this view. Close your eyes and remember this.
It will stay longer than a photograph.” And I love thinking about that moment and I think he’s right, I wont forget that landscape. And I think of it often in our digital fleeting world to take my time and really see things instead of watching them flicker by.
Christa
: I get that you’re afraid that Polaroid will disappear. I get that. I am sad about it too. I just don’t think it’s a reason to attack the possibility of new, different things.
Rhiannon
: Is it not? I think it is a very good reason, particularly when that thing is not new, or different. I am not attacking all digital, just digital methods that try to emulate analogue. I can’t see what is different, or new about Hipstamatic, except that you can make a bad image look “cool”. As the title suggests, the “Hipstas” like it.
Christa
: Then you haven’t read my arguments – especially at the beginning. I have said what’s new and different a thousand times. It’s new cause it is. It’s different cause it is i.e., it’s not Polaroid or Holga or Diana, it’s Hipstamatic.
Rhiannon
: You can achieve all that Hipstamatic does, and better, with high resolution negatives shot on film- so what is new and different about it? Other than that it is easy for people to do, and you don’t need to know how to cheat on Photoshop.
Christa
: I think the summary of our conversation is this:
Christa and Rhiannon disagree on the question “What is Art?” as well as disagree on the concept of “the Real.”
Christa believes in situating Photography within an Art context, Rhiannon does not.
Christa believes in the importance of analogue AND digital. Rhiannon only believes in analogue.
Christa likes the Hipstamatic as well as all of its analogue predecessors, Rhiannon thinks the Hipstamatic is the devil’s spawn. Christa is excited by all the possibilities of our digital future and believes so much Art will be made within it!
The end.
Rhiannon
: Ha, I like your summary.
Christa
: thanks! I tried…
—
7 Responses to Photography trends: Hipstamatic
R.I.P. Google Wave
Really interesting discussion! Flattered to be mentioned in it. I do of course also work a lot with the concept of the ‘signed, ‘authenticated’ single edition’ 6×4 print-object, but where I still have the digital scan of it freely available for people to see online and even steal if they want.
The whole digital/analogue debate is totally interesting. Not only in terms of the images themselves, and the process of taking them, but also in terms of the archive – the format of what we leave behind, and how accessible it will be to future generations as technology changes. (How many of us have a floppy disk drive to extract the data we so carefully backed up a decade ago? Do we care if it is lost?) And how that will impact on our sense and understanding of history. On personal and wider political level.
But I don’t personally really see any particular hierarchy between digital and analogue. I see them simply as different mediums; preferring to use (but not necessarily to look at) analogue myself, because the whole light on photo paper thing turns me on more than creating a digital file made of 0s and 1s. But this is also because I don’t really enjoy spending more time at my computer than I have to and I do (in an old fashioned sense) enjoy the simple task of framing something that makes a beautiful or interesting picture, without having to really alter anything afterwards: my decisions are made on site at the time of taking the picture rather than later. But this is why I love my Leica, which creates such clear images, where blades of grass and lines in the sky are totally defined, that using it has actually made me see better with my own eyes.
I also like your comment, Christa, about the images you did not take. I think with film though this can happen easily, by mistake. The times my camera wasn’t winding on for whatever reason, I remember what the photos should have been in some ways more clearly than I remember those I did take. Like the landscape you described. It’s about making a conscious decision to remember. But that is not to do with digital or analogue – it’s about remembering to look and observe rather than only see through the lens of whatever photographic devise one is using..
Thanks for nice discussion!
Elly
Thank you for commenting on this Elly.
For me, digital is only the enemy because of the threat it causes. Not in terms of a threat to what I do with my images – but instead the threat it causes to the manufacture of the film I love.
I think film film – like 35mm, etc will be around much longer than instant film, say. So I think there is a distinction to be made there too. A light sensitive film is not as hard to make as Polaroid film with over 20 component parts. So there will always be someone who takes it upon themselves to “make” film, but sadly small scale production isn’t an potion for my beloved instant film.
The other interesting thing is that Polaroid exists simply because it is fast. No Dad taking pictures on holiday would have used Polaroid if it had to go and be developed. It was distinct from film when it emerged because it was fast. It was lower quality, but the fact it was instant was its one and only selling point. Obviously Polaroid branched out into pro photo proofing, medical photography (particularly dentistry), forensics, pornography, casting, continuity… All because it was instant.
Now, digital is more instant than a Polaroid (technically- though you do still need more equipment i.e. a computer, etc to create an image). So all the reasons that Polaroid was used have slowly been eaten away. Professionals don’t use it because digital is faster and cheaper for clients, so expensive 5×4 sheet films were the first to vanish. The same things go for all of those other applications… the only people who still had the potential to keep at least a small proportion of the films alive were the average consumers, who would go to Boots to buy their 600 film. It is those people, whose quest for a different kind of instant led to a changeover to 3.2 MP Casio Exilim cameras, and iPhones. now, who buys Polaroid film? Addicts like me, and a few artists here and there. But there are not enough of us to keep it alive.
So, this is why Hipstamatic is a threat to me. I pick on the people who like Hipstamatic because they are the people who potentially, have enough of an interest in an analogue sensibility to shoot this way. Those are the people who have the potential to be converted to real Polaroid – so it seems like more of an insult when people who like what analogue looks like use the very tools that are killing it… if you see what I mean.
I like the notion of an instant photograph being an absolute one off, like a mini painting, never to be recreated as an equal original. Whereas a run of 5 single prints from one neg will be equally “original”. I guess a Polaroid is the negative, and everything that comes after is a copy.
I like the way Polaroid makes me see the world differently- it taught me to keep hold of moments, it taught me to appreciate the physical print- the print that maybe has grains of sand stuck to it from the beach that it was shot on. That Polaroid isn’t just an image of a place, it takes part of the place with it and is part of it. You can touch it. Digital, for me, prevents that closeness- a glass screen gets in the way of me holding and touching…. and that’s why it can’t be replaced for me.
Photography doesn’t belong to anyone. Photographers that use real film that are upset and angry etc that ‘normal people’ are daring to have some fun with photos using Hipstamatic really need to just calm down. It’s just a bit of fun.
“So, this is why Hipstamatic is a threat to me. I pick on the people who like Hipstamatic because they are the people who potentially, have enough of an interest in an analogue sensibility to shoot this way. Those are the people who have the potential to be converted to real Polaroid – so it seems like more of an insult when people who like what analogue looks like use the very tools that are killing it… if you see what I mean.”
This is EXACTLY the sort of pious nonsense I’m talking about. The people enjoying Hipstamatic don’t have any interest in Polaroid for many reasons. Why on earth should they show an interest in Polaroid simply because one of the ‘looks’ in Hipstamatic is Polaroid? They use the app because it’s fun and lets them make their photos look more interesting and colourful. Some of them aren’t creative photographers, some of them are.
But WHO CARES?
Polaroid is dying for many reasons. Are you going to ‘target’ all the users of PictureShow, Polardroid, SwankoLab, CameraBag, Photoshop, etc etc etc as well?
You shoot *your* stuff, that makes you happy, and let other people shoot their own stuff, that makes *them* happy.
Maybe they don’t want to. It’s hideously expensive and the prints do not last very long, relatively. Just because ‘the original’ still exists doesn’t mean people using these fun little apps inspired by it should be made to use it.
I’m sure most people have used a Polaroid. I have, and I like them a lot – in fact I actually own several Lomo cameras and a Holga but I never use them because it’s expensive to get them processed and there’s a very high number of misses for each hit.
I agree that posting Poladroid photos on a Polaroid site is just wrong and I wouldn’t accept them either, but please don’t sneer at these people. They’re just having fun with photos. The world moves on. Digital is here.
I hate hipstamatic, and plastic toy camera photography. I think its crap, and at the end of the day, its nothing more than a gimmick a hell of a lot of talentless people hide behind.
BUT!
I can’t sit here and say it’s not art. No one has that right.