By Nathan Jurgenson
Nathan Jurgenson is working on a dissertation about self-documentation and social media and wrote this essay for his Cyborgology blog.Find the original post here. It is replicated on The SIP with the author’s permission.
a recent snowstorm in DC: taken with Instagram and reblogged by NPR on Tumblr
Images are Courtesy of Nathan Jurgenson
This past winter, during an especially large snowfall, my Facebook and Twitter streams became inundated with grainy photos that shared a similarity beyond depicting massive amounts of snow: many of them appeared to have been taken on cheap Polaroid or perhaps a film cameras 60 years prior. However, the photos were all taken recently using a popular set of new smartphone applications like Hipstamatic or Instagram. The photos (like the one above) immediately caused a feeling of nostalgia and a sense of authenticity that digital photos posted on social media often lack. Indeed, there has been a recent explosion of retro/vintage photos. Those smartphone apps have made it so one no longer needs the ravages of time or to learn Photoshop skills to post a nicely aged photograph.
In this essay, I hope to show how faux-vintage photography, while seemingly banal, helps illustrate larger trends about social media in general. The faux-vintage photo, while getting a lot of attention in this essay, is merely an illustrative example of a larger trend whereby social media increasingly force us to view our present as always a potential documented past. But we have a ways to go before I can elaborate on that point (see parts II and especially III of this essay). Some technological background is in order.
The first very popular app that made your photographs instantly retro was Hipstamatic app. Instagram is even more powerful with its selection of multiple “filters,” that is, different flavors of vintage (a few not-so-vintage filters are available, too). Instagram also features a popular social networking layer that allows users to contribute and view a stream of Instagram photos with “friends.” Other retro photography applications are available as well.
What do these apps do? Among other things, they fade the image (especially at the edges), adjust the contrast and tint, over- or under-saturate the colors, blur areas to exaggerate a very shallow depth of field, add simulated film grain, scratches and other imperfections and so on. And, importantly for the next post, the photos are often made to mimic being printed on real, physical photo paper. And many of our Facebook, Tumblr, Twitter, etc. streams have become the home to one of these vintage-looking photos after another.
Why Faux-Vintage Now?
This trend was made possible due to the rise of smartphones because smartphone photography has at least three important differences from the previous (and increasingly endangered) point-and-shoot digital cameras: (1) your smartphone is more likely to be on you all the time, even while sleeping, than was even the most portable point-and-shoot; (2) the smart phone camera exists as part of a powerful computer-software ecosystem comprised of a series of applications; and (3) the smartphone is typically connected to the Internet in more ways and more often than previous cameras were.
Thus, the photos you take are more likely to be social (opposed to for personal consumption only) because the camera is now always with you in social situations, and, most importantly, the device is connected to the web and exists within a series of other apps on your smartphone that are often capable of delivering content to various social media. Beyond being social, the applications make it far easier to apply different filters to photos than did point-and-shoot cameras or using photo editing software on your computer.
But the question I am asking with this essay is not just about the rise of digitally manipulated social photography, but why these digitally manipulated photos showing up in our social media streams are manipulated specifically to look vintage. Why do so many of us prefer to take, share and view these faux-aged photos?
Is Picture-Quality the Reason?
Perhaps, as another blogger noted, it is the low quality of phone cameras that has lead to the rise of faux-vintage. Maybe the current quality of smartphone cameras tends to produce stale photographs which are then made more interesting when given a faux-vintage filter? Photographers have long known that, depending on the situation, a gritty photo can be as good as or better than a technically perfect shot, and now everyone with a smartphone can take an interesting picture with just one additional press of a button. But, this explanation does little to explain why we equate vintage with interesting in the first place. [Also, many current smartphone cameras are of high quality].
Poets and Scribes?
Another reason for the rise of faux-vintage photography might be that these apps allow us to be more creative with our photos. Susan Sontag in the wonderful On Photography discusses how photography is always both the capturing of truth as well as a subjective creation. In this sense, when taking a photograph we are at once both poets and scribes; a point that I have used to describe our self-documentation on social media: we are both telling the truth about our lives as scribes, but always doing so creatively like poets. So, if “photography is not only about remembering, it is [also] about creating,” then the rise of smartphones and photo apps have democratized the tools to create photos that emphasize art, not just truth. But, again, this explanation would only explain why we might want to manipulate photos in the first place. It does not explain why so many of us have so often chosen to manipulate them into looking specifically retro/vintage.
In the next post, I will argue that the rise of faux-vintage photos using apps like Hipstamatic and Instagram is part of a grasp for authenticity. The photos evoke “a nostalgia for the present” that grants them a feeling of being more authentic and real. The third and last part of this essay will describe how the faux-vintage photo is indicative of a larger trend surrounding how our lives are increasingly always a potential document, and I will conclude the essay with a prediction about the future of the faux-vintage photo.
9 Comments
הגישה הזאת שמתיחסת לפילטרים כאל שקריות פשוט מפספסת בגדול אסתטיקה חדשה, דיגיטלית במהותה, כמו שברנסאנס ציירו אינספור עמודים שבורים, או פסלים לבנים.
דור האינסטגראם וההיפסטמטיק הוא דור שאת התמונות הישנות הכיר כדהויות, כמו שפסלי יוון היו צבעוניים והעמודים שלמים, כך גם צבע התמונות דהה, ועל האסתטיקה שלו מתענגים, כי היא פשוט יפהפיה. וכמה אפשר לצטט רק את סוזן סונטאג כאילו היא היחידה שאי פעם כתבה על צילום.
הבעיה העיקרית שלי עם כל הכתוב היא ההגדרה של ויטג’ שקרי. הקונוטציה כאן רעה, ממש כמו שכינו את הבארוק ואת ימי הביניים.
Hey Hadas, thank you for your comment. The faux-vintage concept does not try to imply that this new aesthetics does not have a valid place in photography or in our concrete world. Rather, it tries to reformulate our familiar concepts, in the hopes of helping to illustrate larger trends about social media.
Hello,
Thanks for your post.
I have addressed this topic in a broader horizon in my book on visual effects (2008) and earlier in an essay (2004):
http://www.zauberklang.ch/vfx_en_css.html
The effect started much earlier than the Hipstamatic craze, namely in computer-generated imagery with a variety of cultural functions.
Best
Barbara Flueckiger
Prof. Dr. Barbara Flueckiger
Institute of Cinema Studies
University of Zurich
http://www.zauberklang.ch
Timeline history of visual effects, CGI, computer animation, now with links:
http://zauberklang.ch/timeline.php
Hello, thank you so much for sending this text. Do you find that the hipstamatic craze is an additional aspect of this process, or is it something new – made possible by technology?
Lev Manovich commented on this trend (sort of) back in 1995 – way before Instamatic etc.
http://www.manovich.net/TEXT/digital_photo.html
I do not fully agree, but he has some good points:
“Even more fetishized is “film look”
itself — the soft, grainy, and somewhat blurry appearance of a photographic image which is so different from the harsh and flat image of a video camera or the too clean, too perfect
image of computer graphics. The traditional photographic image once represented the inhuman, devilish objectivity of technological vision. Today, however, it looks so human, so
familiar, so domesticated — in contrast to the alienating, still unfamiliar appearance of a computer display with its 1280 by 1024 resolution, 32 bits per pixel, 16 million
colors, and so on. Regardless of what it signifies, any photographic image also connotes memory and nostalgia, nostalgia for modernity and the twentieth century, the era of the pre-digital, pre-post-modern. Regardless of what it represents, any photographic image today first of all represents photography.”
Hi Alex, thank you for your comment. One of the questions we can relate to in this context is whether we can relate in the same way, especially when thinking through ontology, to the cinematographic image and the photographic image. Do they behave in the same way? Can we depict similarities in their function in the world?
@Rotem, wont try and answer that here, but apparently Manovich did think so, since he spoke of digital photography, video and digital imaging (3d computer animation) in the same brief text – with a headline of “paradox of digital photography” ..
Off course they are not the same thing, but on the other hand, they are connected in various ways. Personally I think nostalgia is one small part of it, but it is also a question of “style” and aesthetics. And also, it is a way to dress up the crappy iPhone images. I think it changes the way people look at the images when they look less “realistic”..
Hi Alex, in that aspect, I think there is much more to be said about the viewer’s experience in the face of photo-apps. Not only in terms of viewing, but also of participation. Here, perhaps, lies a central feature in what makes this technology different than its predecessors. Would love to hear your opinion.
Thanks for reposting my essay; very cool! If interested, check out parts 2 and 3: http://thesocietypages.org/cyborgology/2011/05/14/the-faux-vintage-photo-full-essay-parts-i-ii-and-iii/
Agree with Alex that choosing a faux-vintage filter is abut style and aesthetics. But, of course, that is only the start of the conversation. Why do we choose the style/aesthetic that we do? The essay is an attempt at formulating at least a partial answer.