Friday, May 06, 2005

Holga Vs. Melancholytron


The Bubble, Jersey City, New Jersey
taken with a Holga camera using Kodak 400TX film
holly northrop

Thanks to Karen of Fluid Thinking, I'm now checking out Holgas. They seem fun but I still prefer the homemade pinhole cameras.

I've been thinking about how the effects of low end and/or outdated technologies are mimiced in programs like Photoshop. Lens flares, scratches, pinholes, etc - all are available with a few clicks. Digital files can be converted into negatives and printed out on photo paper, thwarting notions of purity and authenticity.

Are artists who utilize these new filtering tools producing fakes? Does it depend on whether or not they advertise their methods of making? Does it depend on whether or not the use of these filters is central to the underlying concepts? northrop's above photograph might have been done using the Melancholytron filter. Does it matter?

2 Comments:

Blogger fluidthought said...

Good question. I've come to think that a tool is a tool, the work is the work and it's up to the artist to decide what the term 'authentic' means in terms of their own work. Some will always be purists, and that's fine but I don't think 'new' tools denegrate ideas necessarily.

6:02 AM  
Blogger Anne Walk said...

i agree with your statement that new tools don't denegrate ideas. i am curious, however, about new tools that are specifically designed to mimic the look of old tools - a video special effect that adds "scratches" and "skips" to the video, as if it was made of film, for example.

and, i am wondering if the use of older technologies as a purist method of obtaining these aesthetic results is more sincere or if it is just as much about simulation/nostalgia as a photoshop filter is.

10:59 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home