i hate digital [analog remix]
remix hand written using analogue technology.
scanned, edited, uploaded and shared worldwide using digital technology. how else?
i hate digital.
i felt compelled.
finally, i had to do it.
the more i think about this statement, the more i needed to vent [a little].
where does this nonsensical, feeble minded idiocy come from?
if this statement is made with tongue firmly in cheek, i'll gladly turn the other way.
if this statement is made with any seriousness whatsoever it is simpleminded artistc racism, and should be treated with the same rancour and disdain offered to its more caustic, divisive and troublesome cousin.
repeat - i hate digital.
let us deconstruct.
i have to begin with the base and hilarious irony this statement affords us. after all, this is a group that lives on a digitally based image sharing platform. a group whose analog photographs must be digitised before uploading to aforementioned digital platform. priceless!
the statment also succeeds in the area that most 'i hate' statements succeed. it is immediately limiting in an artistic sense [we can discuss the fact that aesthetic limitation can sometimes lead to creative freedom in another comms thread].
it's akin to asking a writer to write a novel, then telling the writer that only 27 words from the dictionary may be used. or telling a pianist they can only use the black keys, and then only twelve of them.
why not form a flickr group and name it 'i love film'?
there are those analogue purists [sic] who argue that digital cameras, their affordability and sheer numbers, have let loose a huge plague of 'bad' photographs. a vast increase of noise to signal. what matters this? i think you should have the confidence that your work will be part of the signal, not part of the noise.
it seems to me that the digital revolution has offered a kind of democratisation that has only been equalled by such photographic innovations as the wonderful kodak 'brownie'.
it is ever thus that priests and prelates fear the ability to communicate be offered to the 'masses'.
goodness, it may affect the way we say what art is?
well. what is art?
i have no care either way.
as previously mentioned, you should have confidence in your work.
proliferation is not necessarily counter productive. it is more often productive.
though reactionary behaviour can often be suggestive.
like the catholic church raging and fighting against the translation of the bible from latin.
digital. analogue. telescope. microscope. science. thought.
whenever i see these types of behaviour, i think of dictatorships. of brown shirts. of burning books.
my tongue is partially in my cheek, though sometimes sticking out :p