Adam, of http://theflowfieldunity.com/ fame, posted the following cartoon a few days ago. And no, it is not me running.

Goldfinch, Brooke. Digital killed the Polaroid. Yen. Issue 34, 2008. pp106-107.

[On Jamie Livingston: http://photooftheday.hughcrawford.com/]
He wasn't burdened with a heavy camera or a time-consuming developing process and he certainly didn't have to put his memorycard into a machine and wait for the image to download.

It's ironic to think something designed to store and catalogue memories may soon be forgotten. But for many, Polaroid photos represent a lost age when technology was fun, affordable and a little clumsy. Artists will mourn its passing, as will cool kids everywhere.

Grant Hamilton (b. 1969) has produced - and continues to produce - a wealth of fascinating integral Polaroid work, distinctive in both style and subject matter. His background in design is more than evident in photographs of fragments of colour and text (not so much the 'decisive moment' as the 'decisive focus'), as well as explorations of colour itself ('Spectrum' for instance): approaches that also apply to his images of isolated architectural elements ('Autostrada').  Having recently exhibited at The Instant exhibition at the FireHouse in New York and currently working on a 'not a book' project, it gives me great pleasure to present the following interview.

(Merkin)

There are a number of sites (savepolaroid.com springs to mind) that are orchestrating campaigns for the continued production of Polaroid film. Do you think this will be successful?

Nope. I think that, besides the cost of buying the factories, nobody will be able to track down all the old-timers who actually know how to make the film. My understanding is that people have been retiring/being fired for years in order to downsize the workforce. Ain't happening.

While your work can be described as abstract, or graphic, there are varying levels to this. For instance there is a big difference between ‘Blue and Orange’ and ‘Mystery Door’. Do you regard these as different approaches or styles, if at all? Is one an extension of the other?

They share a common philosophy, I suppose. I try really hard, regardless of the subject, to edit the photo to show ONLY what is absolutely necessary. Whether the subject is something identifiable or more abstract is less important (to me). The more representational work is much more difficult though. There is always some telephone pole or something getting in the way and with the Polaroid, I can't edit that out later. So I miss a lot of shots because of that.

Do you take account of the white frames of the Polaroid when producing your work?

Not really. I think they do add some context and charm to the finished photo but I don't really think of them when shooting. The one exception might be if I am trying to make some sort of collage of images, like Confusion. That's pretty rare though.

On designcorner.com it says that you create 'one-of-a-kind original photographs from found objects and colors.' In an essay by Sven Lutticken, Walker Evans is quoted equating taking home an actual street sign with photographing a street sign, stating: "This lifting is, in the raw, exactly what the photographer is doing with his machine, the camera, anyway, always." Would this apply to your own work in anyway? Are you photographing things you can’t take home?

Somewhat. I did just buy a bowl made from old street signs that I plan to hang above my fireplace. For me, photography is more like a scavenger hunt. Since I don't live at the foot of El Capitan, I need to find beauty in the mundane. I like it that people rarely recognize the subjects of my photos despite the fact that they have probably seen them hundreds of times without actually seeing them. At a recent show in Seattle, I realized that one of my photos was a detail of a sign that was hanging across the street. I shot my photo in Denver but the real estate company had offices in Seattle as well. I had fun with some of the show-goers who tried to find the sign after I told them about it. Certainly Ansel Adams never had a show and realized that you could see Yellowstone from New York. So I think the ubiquity of my subject matter makes it a little less "special" and makes me emphasize the seeing. My photographs have very little to do with a spectacular location, lighting or equipment. It is all about seeing the subject.

The unique status of the Polaroid, its singularity, is one of its defining features: how do you regard the large format prints you have produced from such Polaroids? Are they limited in number?

The work for sale at Polanoir are limited editions but, personally, I think limited editions are a sham. It is simply a way to add artificial value to something. I want people to buy my work because they like it, not because it will be more valuable after I'm dead. I do have a really hard time with the idea of selling the originals though. I don't know how painters do it.

Have you considered producing a book of your work (through blurb.com or lulu.com for instance)? What would you put on the cover?

I have. I just haven't done it yet. I think I'd like to wait until more of my film is gone. There are still about 800 exposures left in my refrigerator. I'd probably put a naked woman on the cover. I think that would sell a lot of books. I am working on something that is super seekrit that is way better than a book...

Any more hints on your not a book project...

I'm not really authorized to talk about it but it involves LOTS of photos. Approximately 24 of them every second.

What do you think the Polaroid photograph has to tell us about current (digital) photographic practice?

Digital photography has no soul. People realized that and fell in love with Polaroid or Lomo or whatever. I think the TTV (through the viewfinder) movement is a testament to that. People are shooting their digital cameras through the viewfinders of old twin-lens reflex cameras to distort the images and add dust and scratches. The character is in the imperfections. Polaroids have the square format and turquoise skies. It is too bad that the conventional wisdom is that digital photography has to replace film, that there has to be a "winner" because clearly they complement one another. I think that mentality is a large part of the reason that Polaroid stopped production. I had heard that integral films were still slightly profitable but everyone just knows that there is no future in film, right?

Has anyone working with Polaroid has caught your eye recently?

I am a big fan of Lou Noble (http://blog.louobedlam.com/). In my opinion, he is one of the best portrait photographers out there. Sean Tubridy (http://www.flickr.com/photos/seantubridy/) is fantastic also. His set-pieces tell little stories and are so clean. His innovation of making a transparent overlay for the film pack in order to add a colored border to the image is brilliant.

What is your favorite quote referencing Polaroid [in the interest of fairness I can’t find the exact words of  my favorite: it’s Walker Evans stating that, due to the simplicity of the Polaroid process, one needs to be an expert in photography to be able to create anything meaningful with it.]

“Now what the hell am I supposed to do?”- John Waters commenting on the end of Polaroid film production.

You mention (http://www.joshspear.com/item/speartalks-grant-hamilton/. 28/03/08) in an interview with Josh Spears that your last Polaroid will be a 'self-portrait of me wearing sad clown makeup holding an injured dove. And it’s raining.' What will you do with this last Polaroid?

Use it to wipe my tears.

Grant Hamilton can be found online at:
http://www.sxseventy.com/
http://flickr.com/photos/granthamilton/

'In plain sight' (7x7 inches. 92 pages. August 8, 2008) by Scott Hammond (http://www.blurb.com/bookstore/detail/319249).

Drawn from his extensive collection of road-trip Polaroids began in 2002 (See my previous post: Scott Hamond: Polaroids).

Scott's own site is at: http://thelovelyroad.com/

'Defekto Polaroid' (10x8 inches. 88 pages. Published: June 24, 2008) by Jim Lucio (http://www.blurb.com/bookstore/detail/279036). I have seen a lot of Jim's work before, showing his work on polarama.com back in 2006, so its good to see a book finally available.

'The 'roids' (10x8 inches. 30 pages. Published: July 9, 2008) by Mark Tripp (http://www.blurb.com/bookstore/detail/292353). He writes:

I’ll pose people I work with looking up and away. Oh, and they can’t smile. Five years, countless shoots and way too many M&Ms later, I give you – The ‘roids.

Mark Tripp can also be found online at:
http://www.trippyads.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/trippypics/

I am currently in the UK and will be flying back home next week, when normal sevice will resume. I am in the process of conducting a number of interviews, which are thus far proving to be very interesting, and will be loaded up as soon as they are completed. Also, I hope to have more details about the recent The Instant exhibition. Additional new work will also be added. The email link and print functions should be working again soon! In the meantime, if you have any Polaroid news, send me a line.

Photospace are soliciting work for the Polaroid exhibition In a Moment (03/09/08 - 20/09/08. 'Celebration night' 06/09/08). The fee is 80 Australian dollars per artist with a maximum of four works per artist.

The gallery web site (http://photospace.net.au/future-exhibitions/) states that works not selected to be hung on the gallery walls will still be available to view in the gallery. I imagine, then, that a lot of work can be shown at this exhibition...

While I do not run a gallery, I have exhibited and I have also curated; in each case no money was expected from the artist. So how does this work? Is it usual practice? Or is it the musical equivilent of 'pay to play'? Is this for the gallery to make money or cover costs? Other questions that spring to mind are: how is the work selected? If all the work submitted is to be shown (one way or another), how will the good work stand up along side the bad? Is this normal practise?

http://www.audioresearcheditions.com/feedback.htm

Forgotten Seconds.
The cycle of seconds consists of 300 sonic snapshots (and 1,200 edits) recorded at different internal, external, public and private locations throughout the city of Liverpool, between 14.02.02 - 07.04.02. Each second freezing a moment in time in a similar fashion to the way a Polaroid captures a visual image. As the clock ticks by the ear jumps here and there along the timeline collecting information, much as the eye moves around the surface of the painting to complete the picture. Forgotten Seconds compiles an impressionistic portrait of the city, by bringing into focus the inconsequential moments and events of the everyday, in everyday spaces. Taking an ear for a walk [emphasis added].