|
|
As an observer of the national and international photo scenes since 1967, I can safely say that no major manufacturer of photographic tools and materials demonstrated more open-handedness — or even-handedness — than the Polaroid Corporation in supplying its products to artists, photographers, and photo teachers (not just post-secondary but K-12 also), in large and sometimes endless quantities. […]
Certainly no one expected any corner of the photo world to become entangled in the elaborate, byzantine schemes that have made headline news recently and brought down investment scammers such as the visibly non-archival Bernie Madoff. But that’s exactly what’s happened to the Polaroid Collection, which now faces a distinctly uncertain fate. It’s caught up in the international fiscal crisis — because Polaroid’s assets were purchased in 2004 by alleged Minnesota Ponzi schemer Tom Petters, presently in jail and awaiting trial on these charges in September 2009. Under these circumstances, title to ownership of the works isn’t clear; it seems likely the Petters fraud case will drag on for years, leaving the collection in limbo until it concludes. . . . […]
This is certainly one of the most oddball entries in the ever-expanding Star Wars canon — never actually identified as such, though not officially disowned by Lucas, who outsourced it to director Steven Shainberg. It’s an eccentric art-film approach to the Star Wars saga, and while I admire its ambition I don’t think it works on any level except for the cinematography. My rule of thumb: If you intend a biopic (even an “imaginary” one) of a famous photographer, lose the Wookiees. Conversely, if you want to make a Wookiee film, best to set Arbus, Richard Avedon, Walker Evans, Dorothea Lange, et al aside. (You might get away with David LaChappelle.) . . . […]
The classic instance of this projector-related incomprehension among academics came for me during a 1982 Rosalind Krauss lecture at the Society for Photographic Education National Conference in Colorado Springs. Krauss put one of Cindy Sherman’s “Untitled Film Stills” images on the screen and left it there for a good twenty minutes. Inevitably, the bulb generated heat in the small space between itself and the slide, warming the celluloid substrate that carries the image. The substrate swelled and buckled slightly, which popped the image out of focus. “Focus that,” Krauss would order. Finally, clearly frustrated, and evidently ignorant of basic thermodynamics, Krauss snapped, “This is a roomful of photographers! Doesn’t anyone know how to focus?” At which point the emulsion on the Sherman on the screen started to melt. […]
Polaroid has begun to reinvent itself for the 21st century. As you’ll see at the company’s website, Polaroid hopes to reposition itself in the digital-imaging environment while building on its brand-name recognition and long history in the medium. More power to them. Inevitably, some of its earlier products will fall by the wayside during that process — to the dismay of their dedicated users. This represents elementary free-market economics in action. Type 55 film has become one of the casualties. . . . […]
|
 SPJ Research Award 2014 Thought for the Day Ignorance is a condition; dumbness is a commitment.
Copyright Notice All content of this publication is © copyright 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025, 2026 by A. D. Coleman unless otherwise noted. All materials contained on this site are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced for commercial purposes without prior written permission. All photos copyright by the individual photographers. "Fair use" allows quotation of excerpts of textual material from this site for educational and other noncommercial purposes.
Neither A. D. Coleman nor Photocritic International are responsible for the content of external Internet sites to which this blog links.
|
SPJ Research Award 2014
Polaroid Collections: Another Ponzi Fatality?
Certainly no one expected any corner of the photo world to become entangled in the elaborate, byzantine schemes that have made headline news recently and brought down investment scammers such as the visibly non-archival Bernie Madoff. But that’s exactly what’s happened to the Polaroid Collection, which now faces a distinctly uncertain fate. It’s caught up in the international fiscal crisis — because Polaroid’s assets were purchased in 2004 by alleged Minnesota Ponzi schemer Tom Petters, presently in jail and awaiting trial on these charges in September 2009. Under these circumstances, title to ownership of the works isn’t clear; it seems likely the Petters fraud case will drag on for years, leaving the collection in limbo until it concludes. . . . […]