As I promised earlier, this will be a post about that Lomography thing. I’ve mentioned it in the past and on re-reading, I know I sound somewhat negative about it. Really I think my stance is mixed – there are things I agree with, and things I don’t.
Before I get too far into this, for folks who haven’t heard the term before, here is the Lomography About page. That is a bit of an introduction.
For the TL;DR crowd, here’s a quick summary: Lomography is about analogue (aka film) photography, it is about embracing and celebrating funky results and surprises, and having fun with your camera rather than getting hung-up on achieving technically perfect images.
And in fact, that is what I like about it. When I painted, I did mostly abstract work, and tried to do some surreal work. My feeling was that it was more important to have fun with the media and explore / experiment with it in non-traditional ways, rather than worrying too much about an accurate recreation of a realistic image. Or put it this way – good reliable cameras have been around for 50 years, so why waste time trying to paint like a photograph? Use the paint and canvas to have fun and do things you can’t do with a camera.
That same argument I believe can be applied to analogue / film photography: reliable, high-quality digital cameras are now almost ubiqutous, so why waste time trying to get 100% perfect results with old analogue film and chemistry? Instead, just have fun with the film, the light, the chemistry. Experiment and be creative and see what happens.
Clearly, this is an area where Lomography and I are in agreement. There is at least as much fun and enjoyment to be had in the process of doing and creating, as there is in the having and viewing afterwards. The Lomography folks have gone a lot further in defining this than I ever did of course, and have even defined a set of ten “golden rules” to apply.