Dissertation help, please. Current thoughts on Iphoneography..

<p>Hi everybody. Well, I am researching for my dissertation - which I am planning on doing on the cultural phenomenon that is 'Iphoneography' I plan to discuss the social and cultural needs/purposes of this emerging art form. Is it a new aesthetic in its own right or is it a natural continuum. Does it bring anything new to photography? The only problem I am having is this is such a new topic of study there is not much academic research on it. Could anyone suggest any sites/books that may be relevant. I'd also love your thoughts on the topic. Is Iphoneography democratizing photography in your opinion? Does it matter what the mechanical device was if they produce amazing pictures. Or, do you think because the camera does 'all the work for you' eg: Hipstamatic App, that they are not credible? Any help/feedback would be amazing, and I will send you good karma... Haha. Thanks. N. x </p>

<p>I don't think the device used has ever been critical as much as matching the vision to the device. A good photographer will make a different body of work from whatever they are shooting as compared to anyone just using the same device.</p>

<p>The phone cameras, particularly those like the iPhone's 5mp camera, are eroding the point and shoot market to be sure, but I think the P&S--and maybe more to the point, digital--has already largely democratized photography--at least the act of photographing. There was actually a guy I remember reading about maybe 5-7 years ago that was using a 4mp P&S camera and creating very large prints which sold in top galleries--don't remember the name. It was, for him, about the process of using such an automatic and accessible device.</p>

<p>Lately, I have been seeing many of my friends post Hipstamatic images, these folks are professionals in the advertising and design world. In most cases, the work looks cool on the surface, but it really pretty much the standard fare we see the app used for--fairly banal and meaningless--just grab shots made cool looking. There is no point behind the images but to shoot what they saw and share it and it looks better than if they used the normal iPhone camera.</p>

<p>In any case, if you want to e-mail me/or message me through this site, I can share a few other points I am not ready to discuss in an open forum at this time.</p>

<p>All cameras bring something unique to the medium based upon the functional parameters of the device itself. But there is nothing revolutionary in an iphone that makes it stand out as photographic device. People have been taking digital pictures from their phones long before the iphone hit the market.</p>

<p>Why I am studying the Iphone in particular is because of the cult following it has gathered. We have been able to shoot images on our phones for quite some time now, but the difference with the Iphone is that you can download App's that take your pictures in camera styles ect: Lomo/Hipstamatic. Books have been released (in major book shops) about how to be a good 'Iphoneographer' and Iphoneography for Dummies'. In most major cities over the past couple have months their have been galleries exhibitions that are solely Iphone pictures. I think that although it may not be the best camera phone on the market, it seems to be the only one that has so far been taken seriously. I mean, you only have to Google 'Iphoneography' to see the extent at which this trend has grew. </p>

<p>You could look at the work of Fred Ritchin (<a href="http://www.pixelpress.org/afterphotography/">After Photography</a>). Some of the videos of Ritchin's talk from the FOAM conference (<em>what's next</em>) may be interesting: <a href="http://1000wordsphotographymagazine.blogspot.com/2011/04/whats-next.html">link</a>.</p>

<p>I was today discussing with colleagues the demise of the flip video camera, which was at least partly because it offers no significant advantage over video recording on a mobile phone.<br>

I've also expressed an opinion in an earlier discussion regarding the growth of mp3 audio downloads and corresponding drop in CD sales (see recent HMV situation in U.K.)<br>

I still stand by my thoughts at that time, namely that what the majority of people want is speed and convenience - quality is no longer important whether it be audio, video or photo.</p>

<p>I'm honestly more than a little ambivalent about such images. I don't discount them outright, but I have a natural suspicion and resistance towards accepting them. And these views obviously reflect my personal biases. For one, I tend to link them in my mind to trends in marketing and advertising and the culture at large that are aimed at hyping products, personalities, celebrities, and consumerism. I associate it in my mind to the same mentality that in Hollywood creates movies with inane plots packaged in dazzling special effects.</p>

<p>I'm also ambivalent about the fact that the aesthetic imitates analogue technologies. I know it's not meant to deceive, but why the imitation of the toy camera look or other low-fi photographic technologies besides the desire to project and construct a hipster cool persona? It seems something appropriate maybe for teenagers, or that would appeal to them.</p>

<p><em>Why I am studying the Iphone in particular is because of the cult following it has gathered.</em><br>

Right, it's not about the photographic capabilities, it's about group psychology and marketing. The apps that come with the phone don't do anything that hasn't been available since the first time a digital camera took an image. It makes it easier for those not well schooled in manipulating digital images to do cool things, but there is absolutely nothing unique about the iphone compared to an android phone compared to a blackberry compared to a really cheap pocket digital camera with minimal controls.</p>