The Camera as art project finaly launched

Hi photo.net proud to announce that the camera as art project was finally launched in Nyc during fashion week

and receiving great responses.

 

Posting a first view of our first 3d prototype for Moma. We will do 9 more fore a total of 10 and soon to start a crowdfunding to help

materialize the remaining 9.

Also looking for very high end art Galleries who represent high end photography to host the project in Europe Asia and the west coast.

Was unable to post the images will try again this weekend

In the meantime here's a link to the project images.

 

https://m.facebook.com/Littman45SingleOpusArteCollection?_rdr

THE LITTMAN EMPIRE STATE MMXV<div></div>

THE LITTMAN EMPIRE STATE MMXV

front view.

THE LITTMAN EMPIRE STATE MMXV second view

front<div></div>

The project poster

We will soon make signed editions by the worlds leading photographers to support the project

Art Deco Poster

The poster image is too large

Please use the link to view it if you wish

<p>I am sorry to say . . .I don't understand this thread and cannot make head nor tail of the responses. Can anyone help me with this?</p>

<p>Dr Mr Bedo;<br>

There have been no responses. I am now using a mobile phone which crashed many times while I was trying to post the images. I now shoot as that makes more sense than discussing cameras which have to make sense and don't even after embraced by the entire upper echelon of the profession and yielding consistently outstanding images. That is the only thing which would make sense to me. all else is preferences .</p>

<p>As for the project it makes sense to me and to my audience and I have learned to focus on what motivates me and excites me rather than what makes no sense to me. Its a matter of having a higher aim in the hopes to have a higher vibration and so goes the law of attraction ... .....<br>

have a wonderful day all best W</p>

I'm sorry but after that post, William, i have gone from not being sure to being sure i agree with Drew.<br>Please do explain what this is supposed to be about. Might be interesting.

Well sorry that was not my intention but the title of the thread says it all.

In 2007 i started the camera as art project and at the begining with some

success but limited and over time we got closer and closer to my target until

last year some of the designs were deemed as art and those cameras not considered

objects d art and collected and valued as such.

The camera posted is being considered as one of the or the

most beautiful camera ever made.

Will post more later.

My previous post has a typo. where it says "not considered "should read"now considered"

Here is the 2013 edition

The 2013 edition

Another view

2013 3rd image

Moma protptype II

under construction

Moma II under construction

The experimental design on the Large format digital and analog

All of these are one of a kind designs & copyright of the poster

Still not quite clear, i'm afraid. Will be me.<br>The aim is to have a modified Polaroid camera recognized as a work of art by the MOMA?

The project goal was to make dual purpose cameras

opus: work and arte:art.

The goal has been achieved and the cameras embraced

for both purposes by the target audiences.

 

A paperclip has a much lesser function than a camera modified

or not and its design was deemed as art by the Moma as was a campbell can

when my old boss plastered it on canvas

 

Look sir If you want to discuss art and try to make sense in a practical way

its not conducive.

I have a background in the art world and have worked with some of

the most significant artists of the 20th century.

You dont have to like my work nor appreciate it .

 

My aim now is to curate an exhibit of the 100 best retrofuturistic

designs of the 1940s and fifties to include tge medalist tge chevron

and the german made bantham .

Then select the best 3 of our designs and include them.

 

But you know while the crack at "modified"might have served

to belittle may I remind you the Moma is American and

Americans proudly remind every day that they are 100% mutt.

As is my camera.

 

Thanks you just reminded me of a strength I had not seen so clearly.

So an indeed modified camera recognized as a work of art? And that has been achieved?<br><br>Can you tell us more about how and why? For instance why it had to be that modified camera, and not the Polaroid original.<br><br>And where you would draw the line between design (that thing that aims to serve that dual purpose you are looking for) and art?<br><br>And perhaps also why your background would be relevant (sounds like you think it is)?

<p>There was no need for it to be a modified Polaroid. that is just a circumstantial fact.<br>

I chose these particular cameras because they had the basic framework that would enable my retrofuturistic designs and would also if improvements were implemented bridge some gaps on the technical aspects then I could achieve a camera with my criteria and verifyiable perfection for a predictable and not too extreme expenditure. This I deducted based on the fact that almost a century of camera making had yielded<br>

a myriad of cameras all which had its plusses and minuses but none for my purpose was without need to bridge some gaps and which implied if I started from scratch and having less experience than the exiting industry it would take forever and end up looking functional but basic utilitarian at best and since I hadn't started I wasn't assured I could even accomplish my technical goals so the idea of having something which worked somewhat and to be able to eliminate the errors and then improve one step at a time became extremely attractive to me even if the " modified" label may make it appear as if less attractive to some.<br>

When I realized my audience does not think that way I walked into Ken Hansen's with my Pentax 67 gear sold it all for whatever I could get and a month later I had my first prototype.<br>

I sold 75 cameras in two weeks . it was raw it was unreliable at first but as such even better than what people expected and that honestly scared me as it warned me at the onset that once people perceive something as being better and put it in a box its very hard to then say it needs improvement. better than expected isn't expected.</p>

<p>but all that is old news.<br>

The designs have received several editors choice awards from American photo and other publications and are regularly given as gifts on important occasions and also collected as art by people who collect art.<br>

that was my objective and which has been achieved and the rest of course is a matter of preferences and opinions which everyone is entitled to.</p>

<p>The original Polaroid camera has a nice functional industrial design which is nice but simply industrial and not art .<br>

up to now our designs have enhanced the outlines of the original design but our future issues will depart from these outlines to make our own outlines.<br>

this was also an incremental step as more ambitious and more expense and experience required .<br>

thank you<br>

Our future cameras will also</p>

<p>Interesting. the first camera shown is reminiscent of the Kodak bantam Special. I'm curious who you sold the 75 cameras and the variation of the design between them? Were all these Polaroid cameras, modified for modern films? You mention accolades from the photographic community but site no specifics or links to back up your claims. Perhaps we have a language gap here? More specifics would end the confusion many of us feel regarding this. All the best, Lance</p>

Was it circumstantial that it was a Polaroid, or that it is a modified camera? I gather the work of art is the modification and its result, not the camera.<br>Was it the appearance that was recognized as art? Where, would you say, is the difference between these cameras and a Hasselblad Lunar or Stellar? Are they works of art too?<br>Or was it the bridging of the gaps on the technical aspects? Where would you say is the difference between these cameras and the improved versions of the camera manufacturers themselves?<br><br>The most important question however is why these are works of art. Where does your design pass the threshold that Polaroid's design did not? Could you explain a bit?