December 5, 2000
6:23 AM   Subscribe

Is FOJM a reflective version of Lomography not tied to a specific camera?
posted by plinth (9 comments total)
posted by palegirl at 8:25 AM on December 5, 2000

You are more than welcome to join us in our reckless pursuit of what some consider narcissism.

But, if you think it's narcissistic, you're missing the point.

--from FOJM

I think it is just people taking pictures of themselves in mirrors...the ones i have up there are sort of self-recorded milestones....I don't see the lomo-ness of it.
posted by th3ph17 at 8:27 AM on December 5, 2000

even if you buy into the party line that lomo is more than a camera, it's a lifestyle [or something] the FOJM is a near polar opposite. it's completely contrived.
posted by palegirl at 10:00 AM on December 5, 2000

(Contrived = lomo, yes?)

I've always turned the camera on myself at the end of a roll. Over time it becomes a kind of historical archive - a map of what I looked like when I was taking all those other pictures of other things. Ten years later, I find I'm sometimes more interested in the self-portraits than the rest.

FOJM is a place to take those private moments and make them public, which, when you think about it, is what the personal web is all about (be it homepages, blogs, or whatever). Personal slices of time, revealed to the world....
posted by fraying at 10:16 AM on December 5, 2000

And isn't lomography "just taking pictures from odd angles with a specific camera"? And isn't painting "just applying pigments to a surace?"

posted by plinth at 12:55 PM on December 5, 2000

Lomography is related to the lomo camera. It is a quirky, little Russian-made camera that you can exploit the short-comings of to get artistic and interesting results.

If you have ever used a 35 mm camera on the "bulb" setting and held the shutter open for an extended period of time to get interesting/blurry/blown-out results you can better understand the lomo. It automatically measures how much light has been exposed to the film and closes the shutter at the appropriate time. In addition it has no focus mechanism except for a 4 way switch that ranges from close-ups to distant. The results are often super-saturated, ethereal images. You never really get what you expect.

The similarity here is that lomo users often collage their work in lomowalls much like FOJM.

Here is an example that would fit on both:

If you are interested in the "lomocult" you can find out more about it here:
posted by ooklah at 3:37 PM on December 5, 2000

the whole philosophy of lomography, i believe, is to shoot from the hip and capture photos all the time. real experimental. it has no relationship one way or the other to the FOJM. right?

mirror self-portraits are necessarily contrived and lomography rarely is.

i mean, what are we even talking about? i love my lomo, i use it all the time -- i have also taken photos in the mirror... but these two things do not relate to one another...
posted by palegirl at 6:32 PM on December 5, 2000

I've always turned the camera on myself at the end of a roll.

Me too: usually because I wanted to get the roll to the developers. Though it's often a record of the nasty little rooms I've had to live in over the past few years...
posted by holgate at 9:13 PM on December 5, 2000

i've been taking mirror shots for fourteen years and have accrued an embarrassing number of photographs. is that a lifestyle? while some are contrived (like cramming a number of people in with me), others are spontaneous (i took a shot in a discarded vanity on clayton street last week).

i don't think that it's all or nothing for either. some mirror shots and some lomography are contrived while others are spontaneous.

posted by heather at 9:21 PM on December 5, 2000

« Older Supreme Court hears the D.C. Metro fries case.   |   YASL: Yet another Salon link. Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments