So Kodak has filed for Chapter 11. I must admit the news made me sad. I'm not going to go on a nostalgia trip, nor a digital bashing (I LOVE digital photography. I'm not against it in any way) but it did make me sad to hear the news. I'm not going to comment on what Kodak should or should not have done, but here is a good article if you are interested in reading about it: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/jan/22/john-naughton-kodak-lessons What will become of Kodak is anyone's guess. I hope they'll find a way to stay in business, but I do worry for the future of film. I'm afraid it will become harder and harder to find film, especially locally.
Film has been a staple in my life since I was old enough to hold a camera. We had a darkroom in my home growing up, and it was always mysterious and wonderful to me. Being in a small, dark, quiet space watching something that you created come to life was--and still is--such a thrill.
People ask me quite often what my stance on digital vs. film is. I love both. Both are forms of art that are quite different despite their similarities. I think that we have to rethink film to make it work for the 21st century, however. Film photography is no longer used for documentation. That all goes to the digital realm. Film photography is an art form that is no different from clay or painting, for example. A potter uses a wheel and a kiln to create art. A watercolor or acrylic artist uses paint and a canvas to create art. And a film photographer uses film and a darkroom to create art. Though there are many digital programs that now allow one to create a painting on a computer, there are many who will never stray from the traditional brush-to-canvas method of painting. The same is true with film photography. I use digital photography in my work and every day life for both documentation and art. But when I want to use the darkroom, I am concentrating on an art form that has been around for over 100 years. I don't see why I have to give that up in lieu of digital. I use both for different things.
Digital photography makes sense to a generation of people who have grown up in the computer age with immediate results. If you need a report for school, you look up the information online immediately instead of planning a trip to the library. If you want to find a picture that Ansel Adams took, you look it up online instead of finding it in a book. If you want music, you download it instead of heading off to your local record store to look for it. And now you can even get a movie instantly if you want to watch something. Want to share something with your friend? There's texting, cell phones, and social networks all at your fingertips the exact moment you have an idea. It is the age of the immediate indeed, and digital photography fits right in. You don't have to wait to see your image. It is right there in front of you.
I would hope, though, that people start recognizing film photography for what it is: a beautiful art form that is a process instead of an immediate. Just like sculpting, painting by brush, knitting, jewelry-making, or whatever art form you enjoy, film photography forces you to slow down and take a breath in a world that can be haphazard and frantic.
There's certainly nothing wrong with that.
Until we meet again,
Amanda
