10.6092/issn.2038-3460/17286
The article focuses on the reconfiguration of analogue instant photography (Polaroid-like) in the digital age. Drawing on STS literature on the mutual shaping of users and technology, and on anthropology and the history of photography, it adopts the concept of “photo-object” to discuss how the digitalization of photography stimulated a change in the cultural significance of materiality in the context of aspirational amateur photography, thus showing how this triggered a redefinition of instant photography as a more authentic form of aspirational practice. The article is based on empirical data collected during a multi-sited ethnography conducted in Italy between 2014 and 2015. By focusing on Polaroid’s “objectness” and its dialectical tension with the immateriality of digital photography, the paper highlights an increasingly common process of circulation between analogue and digital photographic environments and argues that this process of circulation can be conceived in terms of a “remediation” process between analogue and digital practices.
application/pdf
2038-3460
17286
1
en
Sergio Minniti
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/
Tecnoscienza – Italian Journal of Science & Technology Studies
remediation
Polaroid 2.0. Photo-Objects and Analogue Instant Photography in the Digital Age
Text.Serial.Journal
https://tecnoscienza.unibo.it/
7
Essays
2016-07-08
2023-06-20
2016-07-08
2023-08-07
17-44
TS
Sergio Minniti
2016/07/08
10.6092/issn.2038-3460/17286
17
IULM – Milano
2038-3460
1
remediation
en
44
Polaroid 2.0. Photo-Objects and Analogue Instant Photography in the Digital Age
https://tecnoscienza.unibo.it/article/download/17286/16148
7
                                                                               Essay
                                                                                     17




Polaroid 2.0
Photo-Objects and Analogue Instant Photography in
the Digital Age

Sergio Minniti
IULM – Milano (IT)




     Abstract: The article focuses on the reconfiguration of analogue instant
     photography (Polaroid-like) in the digital age. Drawing on STS literature on
     the mutual shaping of users and technology, and on anthropology and the
     history of photography, it adopts the concept of “photo-object” to discuss
     how the digitalization of photography stimulated a change in the cultural
     significance of materiality in the context of aspirational amateur photog-
     raphy, thus showing how this triggered a redefinition of instant photog-
     raphy as a more authentic form of aspirational practice. The article is based
     on empirical data collected during a multi-sited ethnography conducted in
     Italy between 2014 and 2015. By focusing on Polaroid’s “objectness” and its
     dialectical tension with the immateriality of digital photography, the paper
     highlights an increasingly common process of circulation between analogue
     and digital photographic environments and argues that this process of cir-
     culation can be conceived in terms of a “remediation” process between an-
     alogue and digital practices.

     Keywords: Polaroid; photo-object; multi-sited ethnography; technological
     resistance; remediation.

     Corresponding author: Sergio Minniti, Dipartimento di Marketing,
     Comportamenti, Comunicazione e Consumi "Giampaolo Fabris", IULM, Via
     Carlo Bo 8, Milano, Italy. Email: sminniti@gmail.com.




1. Introduction

    In 2008, the financial and market difficulties faced by the Polaroid
Corporation led it to cease the production of analogue instant film prod-
ucts. Since then, instant films for vintage Polaroid cameras have come
back to the market thanks to a new company called “The Impossible Pro-
ject”, which acquired and adapted the former Polaroid production plant

TECNOSCIENZA
Italian Journal of Science and Technology Studies
7 (1) pp. 17-44 - ISSN 2038-3460
www.tecnoscienza.net                                2016
18                                                                 Tecnoscienza – 7 (1)

in Enschede, Netherlands (Bonanos 2012). This has been the basis for a
resurgence of instant analogue photography amongst aspirational ama-
teurs1.
    The re-appropriation of Polaroid technology has been sustained by
the emergence of a collective action of technological resistance to digital
photography (Kline and Pinch 1996). At the same time, digital infrastruc-
ture and platforms have proved to be essential to the organization of
communities of practice (Lave and Wenger 1991), devoted to Polaroid
photography, and to the reconfiguration of the practice itself. In the prac-
tices of aspirational amateurs, the materiality of instant prints is culturally
opposed to the immateriality of digital photographs; on the other hand,
instant prints have to be translated into digital form in order to circulate,
to affirm a resistant group identity, and to organize community activities.
In the following pages I will argue that this process of remediation of the
“old” by the “new” technology represents the process through which the
cultural significance of instant photography is negotiated, and social dis-
tinctions are maintained (Henning 2007).


2. Theoretical Framework

    This article has been developed with two intertwined purposes. On
the one hand, it aims to contribute to the theoretical and empirical work
that, in the last 20 years, has put under scrutiny the socio-material dimen-
sion of photography (Batchen 1997; Edwards and Hart 2004) and, more
broadly, the intersection of visuality and materiality in contemporary vis-
ual cultures and practices (Rose and Tolia-Kelly 2012). On the other
hand, by offering an empirical analysis centred on the physical produc-
tion and digital circulation of film-based photographs, this article aims to
shed light on some of the manifold and situated ways in which digitaliza-
tion plays a role in reconfiguring photography’s materiality.
    To develop this analysis, I will draw upon the work of historians of
photography such as Geoffery Batchen and Elizabeth Edwards, who
stressed the need to “think photography beyond the visual” and to pay at-
tention to the objectness of photographs. As Elizabeth Edwards (2009a,
335) puts it: “The photograph has always existed, not merely as an image
but in relation to the human body, tactile in experienced time, objects

    1
      I am grateful to an anonymous reviewer for suggesting to me that the for-
merly adopted term ‘serious amateur’, which pre-dates digital photography, and
refers to those amateur photographers with darkroom skills, can not be simply
transposed to analogue enthusiasts, since the ‘serious amateur’ has now gravitated
to digital photography. Accordingly, I adopted the term ‘aspirational amateur’,
which points to two general, key aspects of this figure, whether s/he is a digital or
analogue photographer: the ethic of self-improvement, and her or his self-
conscious aspiration to produce art (Pollen and Baillie 2012).
Minniti                                                                 19
functioning within everyday practice”. In order to investigate photog-
raphy not solely as a visual phenomenon, but also as a set of practices
producing highly charged social objects, which mediate and are entangled
in human relationships, these scholars have developed the conception of
the photograph as a photo-object, by which they address the inseparable
nature of the visual and the material that characterizes the social experi-
ence of photography (Edwards and Hart 2004). The material elements of
photography are of key importance here because the focus on materiality
emphasizes the relational qualities of photographs in social contexts,
where the relationship between people and people, and people and
things, is mediated by the physical properties of photographs and by the
senses involved in their production and use (Di Bello 2008; Edwards
2009b).
    Thus, central to the effort to understand photography beyond the vis-
ual is the analysis of the main forms taken by photo-materiality: the plas-
ticity of the image itself; the presentational forms with which photographs
are enmeshed, such as albums, mounts and frames; and the physical trac-
es of usage and time (Edwards 2001, 2012; Edwards and Hart 2004).
Secondly, this branch of research characterizes itself for the attention
paid to the circulation of photo-objects. For instance, Edwards (2012) ar-
gues that photographs are objects specifically made to have social trajec-
tories, and draws upon the works of Appadurai (1986) and Kopytoff
(1986) to illustrate how the process of mutual constitution of the visual
and the material is continuously rearticulated through the social and cul-
tural biography of photo-objects. Like any other object, photo-objects
cannot be fully understood through one moment of their existence, but
only as belonging in a continuing process of production, consumption,
exchange, and usage, in which they are active entities, and by which they
are in turn marked and shaped.
    Other scholars expanded this view of the interrelation between mate-
riality and circulation by developing theoretical models which are more
photographic in their conception. Anthropologist Deborah Poole (1997)
raises questions about the multiplicity of trajectories followed by photo-
graphs, and places the social shaping of photographs’ meanings in the flu-
id relationship between their representational content, use value, and ma-
terial forms. She argues that material and cultural work required for pro-
ducing, consuming, and exchanging photographs occurs on the back-
ground of a visual economy, within which visual cultures and practices
constitute, and are constituted by, dynamic assemblages of sociality, visu-
ality, and materiality. The concept of visual economy is thus a means for
“thinking about visual images as parts of a comprehensive organization of
people, ideas, and objects” (1997, 8). Within this organization, the ob-
jectness of photographs matters, especially as they move across spatial,
social, and cultural boundaries.
    Materiality acquires an even more active and dynamic role in the con-
ception of photography as a complex proposed by historian James Louis
20                                                           Tecnoscienza – 7 (1)

Hevia (2009). Drawing upon Latour (1988) and Actor-network theory,
Hevia argues that the social saliency of photography is activated by net-
works of humans and non-humans. He takes into account the materiality
of photographs, technologies, and the entire set of activities related to
photography. By encompassing these elements as parts of a hybrid pho-
tography complex, he attributes to photography “a novel form of agency,
one understood in terms of the capacity to mobilize and deploy elements
for generating new material realities. The photograph is thus neither re-
flection nor representation of the real, but a kind of metonymic sign of
the photography complex in operation” (Hevia 2009, 81). Photographs,
in this view, can be seen as objects mobilized through socio-technical
networks which partake in the production and reproduction of those
same networks.
    Following the steps of these scholars, sometimes referred to as photo-
materialists (Buse 2010b), I will assume in my discussion that: 1) photo-
graphic practices are loci of co-production of the visual, the material, and
the social; 2) photo-objects are both outcomes of this process and active
participants in it; 3) photo-objects are not static, but circulate and “live”
in a constant tension between mutability and immutability, which is local-
ly managed and resolved through actors’ performances.


3. Data Collection

    This article is based on empirical data collected during a multi-sited
ethnography (Marcus 1995) conducted in Italy between 2014 and 2015.
Fieldwork included the observation of activities organized by three dif-
ferent communities of photographers devoted to analogue instant pho-
tography (Polaroid-like), such as workshops, meetings, and exhibitions. It
also included visits to specialized shops and private homes. Twenty-four,
in-depth semi-structured interviews with members of the communities
were conducted. Each interview lasted from 50 to 180 minutes. Given the
field sites, interviews were conducted in Italian and translated into Eng-
lish by the author. The names of interviewees have been changed to en-
sure confidentiality. During fieldwork, over 1,000 photographs docu-
menting practitioners’ activities were also produced.


4. The Shift of Instant Photography from Mass to Niche
Market: Obsolescence, Technological Resistance, and
Materiality

   When in 1947 the founder of the Polaroid Corporation, Edwin H.
Land, announced the invention of instant photography, he dubbed it
“one-step photography”, because it was capable of eliminating a number
Minniti                                                                    21
of steps between the exposure of photosensitive supports and the viewing
of finished prints. In his article “A New One-Step Photographic Pro-
cess,” Land described his invention as basically: “...a camera and a pho-
tographic process that would produce a finished positive print, directly
from the camera, immediately after exposure.” (Land 1947, 61). He em-
phasized how many steps his invention had compressed into one by list-
ing the conventional sequence of the photographic process: “Expose, de-
velop the negative, rinse, fix, wash, dry, expose the positive through the
negative, develop, rinse, fix, wash, dry” (1947, 62).
    In this first version of instant photography, users were still responsible
for pulling the film out of the camera and peeling the negative away from
the positive print. After 25 more years of research, in 1972 Land eventual-
ly achieved his aim of reducing the photographic process to a single oper-
ation by developing a second generation of cameras, which mechanically
ejected images that automatically developed before the eyes of the users.
With the invention of this new technology, named SX-70, “absolute one-
step photography” was born (Land 1972) (for a detailed account of SX-
70 development see Bonanos 2012; Garud and Munir 2008). The SX-70
system was made of two parts: the automatic camera and the so-called
“integral” film – where the term “integral” refers to the fact that the film
itself integrates all the layers and chemicals needed to expose, develop,
and fix a positive image without producing a negative. As the exposed
film was automatically ejected from the camera, it was pressed between a
pair of rollers that ruptured a “pod” containing chemicals. In the course
of a minute, the chemical mixture developed and stabilized the positive
image, producing the iconic white-bordered Polaroid print.
    Two considerations are worth mentioning in order to develop my ar-
gument. They both relate to the specific distribution of competences be-
tween the photographer and the camera that is enabled by the use of Po-
laroid technology. In this respect, I will first illustrate how this distribu-
tion, at the time of Polaroid’s mass diffusion, had been perceived as a
threat to the expertise of aspirational amateurs. Secondly, I will discuss
how, with Polaroid’s obsolescence and the diffusion of digital photog-
raphy, the emergence of a niche of aspirational amateurs devoted to in-
stant photography brought with itself a re-articulation of the meaning of
this distribution of competences. This re-articulation, developed in oppo-
sition to digital photography, made it possible for amateurs to circumvent
the threat to their expertise posed by Polaroid technology. As a result, it
provided a cultural basis for the resurgence of instant photography in the
context of aspirational amateurism.

4.1 Polaroid Materiality Between Rejection and Experimentation

   As widely acknowledged, Polaroid technology was a breakthrough in-
novation that reconfigured the relationship between technology and pho-
22                                                           Tecnoscienza – 7 (1)

tographers by embedding most of the photographic processes into the
camera itself (Hand 2012, 102-103). The reduction of picture-taking to
the “one-step” of pointing and shooting had two noticeable effects on the
practice of photography: first, it removed any requirement of training; se-
cond, it made darkroom work, film processing, and printing unnecessary,
since these activities were now performed by technology. In this sense,
Polaroid further continued the historical process of delegating actions to
the camera that had started with the invention of the first Kodak camera
in 1888, and that marked a change in photographic practice from the
dominance of the professional to that of the amateur (Jenkins 1975a,
1975b; Latour 1991).
    Yet, differently from Kodak, which had removed any requirement of
competences and skills by providing professional photo-finishing services,
Polaroid removed photo-processing and printing from the sphere of hu-
man activity entirely; by doing so, Polaroid reduced photography to its
“degree zero” (Buse 2007). It was not by chance that newspaper writers
adapted the famous Kodak slogan (“you press the button, we do the
rest”) to greet the invention of Polaroid technology, with which, they de-
clared, “you press the button and the camera does the rest” (Buse 2008,
229). The key point here is that while, on the one hand, Polaroid technol-
ogy was a feasible tool for lay people to practice photography, on the oth-
er hand it represented a threat to the expertise of aspirational amateurs,
those spontaneous yet expert photographers whose practice was charac-
terized by the mastering of photo-processing and printing (Griffin 1987).
Since Polaroid technology replaced some key actions previously operated
by experts and did not even produce printable negatives, aspirational am-
ateurs rejected it in great numbers (Buse 2008). Given the historical ex-
clusion of Polaroid technology from the realm of aspirational photog-
raphy, how did it come to be that in the last few years, despite the cease
of production caused by Polaroid’s financial difficulties, instant photog-
raphy has witnessed a resurgence of interest amongst aspirational practi-
tioners?
    Answering this question requires moving beyond considering the issue
of the distribution of competences characterizing instant photography,
and turning to the question of what kind of photographs instant photog-
raphy materially produces. To overcome the gap between the exposure of
film to light and the visualization of the final result, Polaroid developed a
technology that instantly materializes photographs through the process
previously described. As argued by Peter Buse (2010b), the outcome of
this process is the production of photo-objects, which can be thought of
as being a Polaroid’s medium specificity. In the analogue days, the fact
that Polaroid photographs developed on the spot, in the form of images
that could be looked at and touched, gave rise to distinctive socio-
material practices. For instance, one such practice was the use of Polar-
oids as party cameras: “Taking a Polaroid is an event unto itself, con-
tained within the party atmosphere... the picture does not commemorate
Minniti                                                                    23
the past party, but participates in the party as it occurs” (Trotman 2002,
10). Due to its capability of producing photographs that could be instant-
ly visualized and physically exchanged, Polaroids served in festive occa-
sions as a sort of “social catalyst” with an “ice breaking” capacity (Buse
2010b, 10-12).
    Polaroid technology also played a role in the development of private
forms of pornography. It made it possible for people to photograph their
own sexual activity without fearing that photo-laboratories and techni-
cians would violate their privacy. Furthermore, it made co-marital sex
possible on a large scale, as it became a means by which couples who
wanted to swing could establish contact with each other. Since the physi-
cal exchange of Polaroid photographs ensured the anonymity of both
sides to the transaction, instant photography became an intrinsic part of
swinging itself. Curiously, Polaroid’s first low cost, popular model was
named “The Swinger”, although the double meaning of the name was
originally unintended by Polaroid Corporation (Edgley and Kiser 1982).
    These few examples show how the production of photo-objects,
which inherently characterizes instant photography, since it enables the
visualization of photographs on the spot through their instant materializa-
tion, gave rise to a range of socio-material practices in the field of amateur
photography. The automated production of photo-objects and the per-
ception of instant photography as an unmediated way of producing pho-
tographs were both fundamental in the development of such practices.
Yet, in the context of aspirational amateurism, the acceptance of Polaroid
technology was more problematic, as it threatened the photographer’s
role in controlling the whole process of photographic production. Aspira-
tional amateurs could not follow the steps of the artist Andy Warhol,
who, for instance, loved to use Polaroid cameras exactly because they “do
the rest”, thus enabling the re-thinking of the artist’s subjectivity – in his
own words: “I want to be a machine, and I feel that whatever I do and do
machine-like is what I want to do” (Swenson 1963, 26).
    However, although Polaroid technology did not fit aspirational ama-
teurs’ aims and established culture, during the 70s the objectness of Po-
laroid photographs inspired new creative practices able to circumvent the
simplicity of the camera. Such practices were based on the manipulation
of the print, both during and after the development of the image, and on
the combination of Polaroids with each other, and with other materials,
to form composite artworks (Bonanos 2012, 95-98; Buse 2010b). These
practices became ways of producing works that better fitted the aesthetic
criteria and conventions of aspirational amateurism. In particular, the
physical interventions and manipulations accomplished by photographers
resulted in pictorial photographs that resonated with the already estab-
lished amateur tradition of pictorialism (Griffin 1987; Schwartz 1986).
    Hence, in the analogue era, the reception of instant photography in
the field of aspirational amateurism was characterized by a tension be-
tween the material functioning of Polaroid technology, according to
24                                                               Tecnoscienza – 7 (1)

which the production of photographs is assigned to the technology itself,
and the material accomplishments through which photographers could
reinstate their own authorship and circumvent the problem of loss of con-
trol over the process. Thus, on the one hand, Polaroid technical artefacts
were rejected by the many who considered them as “toys”; on the other
hand, Polaroid photo-objects were appreciated by the few who recog-
nized the possibility of experimenting with the inherent physicality of Po-
laroids. I would argue that this tension resulted in an ambivalent percep-
tion of the materiality of instant photography. From this point of view, it
may be interesting to consider how this ambivalence has been recently re-
solved by a new group of users, who significantly define themselves as
“polaroiders” rather than merely “photographers”.

4.2 The Mutual Reconfiguration of Polaroid and its Users

    Experimentations with Polaroid objectness started to diffuse in the
70s, after the introduction of the aforementioned SX-70 technology. In
the context of aspirational amateurism, this practice of experimentation
was less legitimate than that of traditional photography based on dark-
room work, but it was nonetheless appreciated by a niche of amateurs.
Significantly, researchers who conducted extensive ethnographies of ama-
teur photo-clubs during the 80s, such as Griffin (1987) and Schwartz
(1986), do not mention instant photography in their detailed accounts of
aspirational amateurism. Ansel Adams, a famous photographer and con-
sultant for Polaroid Corporation, whose influence was widespread in the
world of amateurs, does not mention any creative technique based on
physical intervention in the revised edition of his book on Polaroid pho-
tography (1978); he instead explains how to adapt SX-70 technology to
satisfy the need for controlling the process of picture-taking. In contrast,
the publication of a number of manuals dedicated to Polaroid manipula-
tion attests an interest in this kind of practice (e.g. Sicilia 1977).
    Resolving the ambivalence that had characterized the reception of in-
stant photography in the field of aspirational amateurism required a
change of both technology and its users. This change appears to have oc-
curred after Polaroid’s announcement that it was abandoning film pro-
duction. As the perceived obsolescence of instant photography reached
its acme, both the new group identity of polaroiders and a new meaning
attributed to the use of Polaroid cameras have emerged. Moreover, this
process of mutual redefinition has been guided by a logic of opposition to
digital photography2. In this sense, it can be described as a phenomenon

    2
      The case of polaroiders shows similarities with that of the TRS-80 users ana-
lysed by Lindsay (2003). In both cases, the obsolescence of technical artefacts
(cameras and computers, respectively) stimulated a process of mutual reconfigu-
ration of users and technology, guided by a logic of opposition to mainstream
Minniti                                                                             25
that Kline and Pinch (1996) defined as technological resistance in order to
address the processes of opposition to mainstream technologies through
which users may become agents of technological change.

4.2.1 The Emergence of Polaroiders

    When, in February 2008, the financial and market difficulties faced by
Polaroid Corporation led it to announce that it would be permanently
discontinuing the manufacture of instant films, a strong claim to save in-
stant photography from obsolescence emerged from those amateurs who
had already adopted Polaroid technology, notwithstanding its simplicity
and illegitimate status. Several photographers turned into activists in de-
fence of the preservation of instant photography, thus creating websites
such as savepolaroid.com and savethepolaroid.com, and subscribing peti-
tions in order to either coax Polaroid into reversing its decision or find a
buyer for Polaroid’s machinery (Bonanos 2012, 164-165).
    Resisting the seemingly inevitable extinction of instant photography,
practitioners decided to “buy films, not megapixels” – to quote what to-
day is a well-known slogan in the world of film enthusiasts. All the inter-
viewees who were Polaroid users at the time of Polaroid’s announcement
reported that their early reaction had been to buy dozens of films, either
new or expired ones; some of them bought hundreds; one did buy 1,200.
Others started online business to sell Polaroid equipment and films3. An
interviewee described how he started his business by chance and then
recognized the existence of a solid niche market:

          I had several vintage cameras, including some Polaroids. One day
          I decided to sell one of them, and put it up for auction for 1 euro.
          It was a Polaroid 1000, then a plastic camera, and it came to be
          sold for 60-70 euros. I had a fucking capital on the ground! Then I
          started to sell my cameras. At the time, you could find [Polaroids]
          at flea markets, hence I started to buy and resell them. The de-
          mand was strong, and I had to find other models abroad, in Ger-
          many, France, and mostly in America. Day-by-day... you know... it


technologies. I am grateful to an anonymous reviewer for suggesting these similar-
ities to me.
     3
       Knowing where to buy equipment has become a fundamental part of ana-
logue photography practices. Online shopping is common, but going to flea mar-
kets is also essential, since such markets offer the advantage of a less institutional-
ized regime of value than that one shared by professional sellers (see Appadurai
1986). Another competence relates to knowing what is the appropriate price to
pay; according to interviewees, vintage cameras are categorized as follows, from
the lowest price to the highest: “found” cameras which are sold “as is”; cameras
tested with batteries; cameras tested with film; cameras refurbished by experts;
Polaroids which have never been used stand on top of the ladder, although they
are intended to be collected rather then used.
26                                                               Tecnoscienza – 7 (1)

       sometimes happened that cameras didn’t work, thus I’ve learnt
       day-by-day how to fix the SX-70s, the most valuable ones.
           Then I created my own camera, using the body of a Polaroid
       1000. Basically, I created a pinhole Polaroid. I also had other good
       ideas, like that of producing properly sized camera bags. Some ar-
       tisans helped me by sewing and assembling them (Edoardo, male,
       44 years old).

    During my research I also met Giorgio, 56 years old, a manager who
has learned by himself how to repair cameras; in his spare time, he offers
repairing services to other practitioners and provides refurbished cameras
to specialized shops. The announced obsolescence of instant photography
thus stimulated a change in the role of users: they turned into marketers,
distributors, repairers, and even producers. This change could be inter-
preted as a transformation of technology appropriation path, which pro-
gressively moved from the sphere of consumption towards the more ac-
tive sphere of production. The creative appropriation of Polaroid technol-
ogy (Eglash 2004), once limited to physical interventions on prints which
violated producer’s intentions, came to include a broader range of activi-
ties developed by the users in order to counteract the market-driven pro-
duction of Polaroid’s obsolescence.
    Most importantly, users not only rearticulated their own role in ap-
propriating photographic technology, but they also redefined their identi-
ty as members of a distinctive social group: a group of practitioners de-
voted to use and perpetuate Polaroid technology, accordingly self-defined
as “polaroiders”. By connecting with each other, Polaroid enthusiasts am-
plified their voice and reorganized the circulation of instant cameras and
films. Networking activities, such as the organization of a collective move-
ment for the preservation of instant photography, as well as the creation
of alternative systems of distribution, quickly transformed the formerly
invisible, dispersed niche of Polaroid users into a relevant social group
(Bijker 1995). This process shaped the perception that the market for in-
stant photography was still remunerative, although limited. Moreover, it
was an empty market, since Polaroid had abandoned it. In the course of a
few months, a new actor entered the market to fulfil the request of saving
instant photography. The new company, called “The Impossible Project”
(TIP), acquired the former Polaroid production plant in Enschede, Neth-
erlands, and hired a dozen former Polaroid employees in order to devel-
op new formulas for producing instant films compatible with existing Po-
laroid cameras (Bonanos 2012).
    Photographers’ activism and the entry of a new producer have re-
versed the process of obsolescence of instant photography, at least tem-
porarily. In the last few years, an increasing number of aspirational ama-
teurs have switched from using high-end digital cameras to simple, auto-
matic Polaroid cameras. The re-appropriation of instant photography
originated from the attempt of a small group of users to renegotiate and
Minniti                                                                    27
contrast Polaroid obsolescence. Indeed, with the digitalization of photog-
raphy, analogue photography “was not being outpaced or becoming ob-
solescent, it had to be made obsolete, and its obsolescence had to be pre-
sented as inevitable” (Henning 2007, 53; italics in original). That the end
of instant photography was a matter of power and dominance rather than
an inevitable fate became somehow clear to Polaroid enthusiasts when
they started to publicly discuss the issue of obsolescence. Why should
they quit practising instant photography, if they still constituted a feasible
market? How could they have replaced their experimentations on photo-
graphs’ objectness with a digital workflow within which photographs are
visualized on screens?

4.2.2 Polaroid 2.0: Resistance and Authenticity

    Since its beginning, the debate about the imminent obsolescence of
instant photography was characterized by the idea that the digitalization
of photography was forcing Polaroid users to dismiss their practice as ob-
solete. Polaroid photographs began to be simulated by digital apps, such
as “Poladroid” (released in 2008), and this remediation of the old tech-
nology by the new revealed even more clearly the attempt of producing
obsolescence by substitution (Henning 2007). As part of their effort to
counteract the deliberate, market-driven production of obsolescence, in-
stant photographers reworked the meaning of their practice in an opposi-
tional way. They not only wanted to affirm that obsolescence was less in-
evitable than it was perceived; they also wanted to state that instant pho-
tography had to be preserved because it was more authentic than digital
photography. The discourse of authenticity provided a cultural basis to
their action of technological resistance, which took the form of a volun-
tary rejection of digital cameras in favour of the exclusive adoption of Po-
laroid technology – as it is convincingly expressed by the slogan “buy
films, not megapixels”, and reinforced by the fact that Polaroid users now
define themselves as “polaroiders” and refuse to adopt the general term
“photographers”.
    Collected data suggest that the opposition between digital and instant
photography is based on three main dichotomies: immateriality vs. mate-
riality; control vs. unpredictability; photography as an impulsive act vs.
photography as a reflective experience. Materiality, unpredictability, and
reflectiveness, on which Polaroid’s authenticity is currently based, are
linked to the two characteristics of instant photography described previ-
ously, its ingrained physicality and unbalanced distribution of compe-
tences. The meaning attributed to these characteristics, once controver-
sial, has been culturally reworked to justify the resistance to the domi-
nance of digital photography.
    First of all, polaroiders believe that Polaroid’s material essence is a
fundamental dimension of photography that is completely discarded with
digital technologies. In the following quotation, for instance, an amateur
28                                                                      Tecnoscienza – 7 (1)

described this material essence as something that digital photography has
“stolen” from the practice:
           [Photography] was a ‘digital’ work, in the sense that you accom-
           plished it with your fingers, with your hands. They have stolen this
           definition, too. That is, the ‘digital’ shifted from being something
           done with fingers to something done with pixels (Camillo, male,
           42 years old).
   Accordingly, polaroiders share the idea that photography should be
practiced “with hands”. From this idea derive both their appreciation of
manipulation and the great importance they attribute to Polaroid photo-
objectness:
           Above all I love manipulation… This is the reason why I love Po-
           laroids so much. I like touching the film, boiling it, transferring
           the emulsion onto a canvas or cardboard. I love the fact that you
           do things with your hands (Alba, female, 43 years old).
    Polaroiders have developed a broad range of techniques related to the
physical intervention on photo-objects. These techniques partly repro-
duce those established at the time of Polaroid’s mass production, but new
kinds of manipulation are also developed to explore the potentiality of
new TIP films. Such interventions include, to cite just few of them: the
“lift-off”, which consists in removing the emulsion layer from film and
transferring it onto a different support; various techniques of surface
painting; picture engraving by using heated tools such as the pyrograph;
removing background layers and chemicals to obtain transparent photo-
graphs; “wounding” the film with nails and other tools. What these tech-
niques have in common is that they presuppose the involvement of bodily
sensorium. As a polaroider once told me, they make of instant photog-
raphy a “photography of the senses”.
    Secondly, Polaroid materiality has become more salient, for it is now
perceived as adding a degree of unpredictability to the supposedly au-
tomatized photographic process. Jamie Bayliss, the creator of savethepo-
laroid.com, was one of the first to sum up the difference between instant
and digital photography in these terms:
           Polaroid represents what I love about art and photography. I be-
           lieve experimentation, accidents, and unpredictability are im-
           portant if not essential parts of the art making process. With Po-
           laroid film you are guaranteed all three will occur at some point...
           It’s not that you cannot be experimental with digital photography:
           it’s just a lot more difficult. It’s difficult to make a mistake. Either
           that, or when you do experiment your results are predictable.4
    This quotation makes it clear that the opposition between digital and
instant photography is based upon the definition of the latter as a process

     4
         http://www.savethepolaroid.com/polaroids/philosophy/ (Retrieved 10/08/15).
Minniti                                                                  29
of discovery and experimentation. In this experimentation, accidents may
occur, photographers get inspired by their own mistakes and the unpre-
dictability of the analogue process can let them find new aesthetic solu-
tions. Different from digital photography, which is seen as “predictable”,
instant photography is perceived as a more authentic creative experience,
since it is able to lead photographers to unexpected discoveries worthy of
exploration. This opposition is also reinforced by TIP, the new producer
of instant films, which emphasizes the unpredictability of the “analogue
adventure” (Bonanos 2012, 168), and has adopted the innovative market-
ing strategy of selling defective batches of films as limited editions de-
signed for the bravest experimenters.
    It can be argued that this opposition between predictable and unpre-
dictable photographic processes represents both a cultural shift within
aspirational amateur photography, and a change of the meaning attribut-
ed to Polaroid’s distribution of competences. As a matter of fact, tradi-
tional aspirational amateur culture has always been characterized by the
idea that photographers play a prominent role in the photographic pro-
cess. Conventionally, this culture prescribes that they have to exercise
control over the whole process of production, from the mental pre-
visualization of the image to its physical or digital post-production (Grif-
fin 1987). In this respect, it is worth noting that the re-evaluation of Po-
laroid technology in the context of aspirational amateurism represents a
break with amateurism’s tradition. At the time of Polaroid’s mass popu-
larity, the reduction of photography to the “one step” of framing and
shooting had been considered an unacceptable limitation by the majority
of aspirational amateurs (Buse 2008). In recent years, as the diffusion of
digital photography threatened the existence of Polaroid technology, the
lack of control over the process has begun instead to be acknowledged
and positively valued. Moreover, this lack of control has been interpreted
as part of a new form of authenticity, upon which an opposition between
digital and instant photography is created and sustained.
    The shift from a traditional culture based on control and predictabil-
ity to a new one grounded on unpredictability can be also understood in
terms of a re-articulation of the way in which human and non-human
agencies are conceived and relationally bound. On the one hand, techno-
logical artefacts are no more seen as neutral tools which photographers
entirely control, but as actants exerting agency in the process of photo-
graphic production. Polaroids have come to be machines of uncertainty,
which shape the experience of photography. This re-evaluation of techno-
logical agency seems to be a common trait of contemporary film-based
practices, as it is shared by other kinds of practitioners, e.g. the “lomog-
raphers”, who use simple, plastic toy cameras which also produce unpre-
dictable effects (Mangano 2011).
    Hence, the re-articulation of instant photography brought with itself
awareness that practicing photography requires the balancing of techno-
logical and human agency. In this case, balance is reached by accepting
30                                                              Tecnoscienza – 7 (1)

cameras that “do the rest” and by reinstating human agency through
physical interventions on photo-objects, that is, by practicing photog-
raphy “with hands”. Polaroid photographs can thus be understood as
photo-objects embodying the hybrid authorship established through po-
laroiders’ practice. They are partly produced by the hands of photogra-
pher, partly by the technology itself. In the process of their production,
both visuality and materiality are co-constituted, and put in continual dia-
logue, through the interaction between human and non-human actors. In
fact, as non-human agency is now acknowledged and positively valued,
accidents and imperfections are tolerated and sought-after:
       Few years ago, a camera with a plastic lens that vignettes the bor-
       ders of the image was something to be thrown away. Yet, my first
       plastic camera gave me great satisfaction... plastic lens, awesome
       vignetting... I love out-of-focus photographs, I love photography
       that is dirty (Pippo, male, 35 years old).




        Fig. 1 – An exhibition of “wrong” Polaroids. (Photo by the author).
Minniti                                                                           31
    The re-evaluation of technical imperfections appears to be widespread
amongst polaroiders, as well as amongst other analogue enthusiasts such
as the lomographers, although it might be reduced in the future due to
the constant improvement of TIP films. Nonetheless, while conducting
my research I found several evidences supporting this issue. For instance,
at a workshop on Polaroid manipulations, the teacher started his lessons
with an introduction to the creative use of errors (“I will firstly illustrate
errors, then techniques”). Even more convincingly, in 2015 a community
I studied organized a collective exhibition entitled “Spare Instants”,
which featured only “wrong” Polaroid photographs mounted on the wall
without frames. Below the subtitle “At the edge of instant photo (and be-
yond)”, compositions of almost unrecognizable images underlined the
subject matter (Fig. 1).
    Polaroiders’ view of how human and non-human agencies are rela-
tionally bound within the practice of instant photography is further elab-
orated with the addition of a third element: the conception of photog-
raphy as a reflective experience. The hybrid dispositif that emerged from
the re-articulation of instant photography entails a form of consensual
abandonment of subjects to the constraints of Polaroid materiality, which
in turn stimulates the development of techniques through which polaroi-
ders prepare themselves to “make things happen”. An interviewee called
this attitude the “zen of photography”:

               [Polaroid] taught me the zen of photography. It means that
          you wake up in the morning, having planned that you’ll be around
          photographing over the entire day, and then you feel... the adrena-
          line! You prepare your bag, take your bycicle and go out, far
          away. You arrive, and have to get there at the estimated time... I
          look at the map and estimate what time the sun will come... [what
          time] the sun will be as I like it to be. I estimate time, get there,
          and get anxious. Polaroids have parallax error, because of the
          viewfinder... the most difficult thing to do with Polaroid is photo-
          graphing a tower and putting it at the centre of the image. In fact,
          I usually shoot once, never take more shots.
              The zen means widening your legs a bit, aiming, taking a
          breath, holding your breath, not resting your arms on the chest,
          because heartbeat makes them move... thus you stand that way
          and aim straight... frame as you wish, then do this movement,
          move down a bit, a bit to the left... you have to learn this move-
          ment, shoot, and then you know you’ve got it right. Because now
          you’re experienced (Pippo, male, 35 years old).

    These excerpts show that instant photography is perceived by the po-
laroiders themselves as a reflective experience: it articulates itself through
a sort of meditation continuously threatened by technological constraints,
such as the difficulty of framing, and by emotional states, such as excite-
ment and anxiety; hence, instant photography is not reduced to the mere
32                                                               Tecnoscienza – 7 (1)

act of pointing and shooting, but instead it is seen as an activity requiring
a long preparation, as well as a learning of how to adapt the photogra-
pher’s body to the camera. Experiencing photography appears to be more
important to polaroiders than producing photographs. As stated above,
shooting is perceived as just the reward of a long process of preparation
and human and non-human interaction, to an extent that only a photo-
graph can eventually be produced. This condensed practice is explicitly
opposed to the “shooting mania” of digital photographers, that is, the
impulsive production of large numbers of photographs which character-
izes digital photography. An interviewee illustrated this point by report-
ing how he reproduced the supposedly unthoughtful digital workflow to
publicly deprecate mainstream photography culture:
       I stuck my iPhone to a train window. Then, while reading a book,
       I kept on shooting without aiming, ta-ta-ta-ta-ta-ta-ta, over the
       whole trip. After returning I selected 10 photos. Then I went to a
       printer and asked him for the most beautiful paper. Then I went
       to a frame-maker for the cardboard frames. I paged the photos in
       a book, one metre long and forty centimetres high, entitled it
       “Boredom”, wrote four lines of crap, and brought it to the Pho-
       toshow. And I received compliments from everyone. ‘Brilliant’,
       ‘fantastic’. I said ‘well, gentlemen, I haven’t done anything except
       carrying around a phone and shooting randomly.’ I selected 10 of
       3,000 photos, you don’t need to be a genius to do so. Thus I creat-
       ed a webpage, which is called ‘I Shit Photo’, to make people know
       what I think of this kind of work (Camillo, male, 42 years old).
    I would argue that by linking the three elements described above –
practicing photography “with hands”, accepting the unpredictability of
Polaroid technology, and valuing the reflective attuning of subjects to the
experience of photography – polaroiders have defined a new kind of re-
gime of authenticity, which is articulated in opposition to digital photog-
raphy and which substantiates their action of technological resistance. A
new distinction about what technical artefacts are appropriate for practic-
ing aspirational amateurism has accordingly emerged. Following this dis-
tinction, analogue cameras are the “real” tools of amateurs, while digital
ones can just pretend to be so by reproducing the physical structure of
their predecessors, as the following excerpt from a conversation between
polaroiders commenting on the latest state-of-the-art digital cameras sug-
gests:
           A: I have to admit that I appreciate the fact that [with Fuji X-
       Pro] you can again set the diaphragm by rotating the aperture ring
       on the lens, instead of pressing buttons and turning small rings on
       the body.
           B: What about the latest craziness from Leica? That without
       screen... a digital camera without screen!
           A: It looks like a real camera! The Fuji X-Pro, too... it looks
       like an old 6x9.
Minniti                                                                               33


    However, although polaroiders reject digital cameras in the context of
aspirational amateurism, they nonetheless admit the use of such devices
for other purposes, e.g. for utilitarian and mundane photography. I found
that using digital devices in different contexts is often made coherent with
the practice of instant photography. The simplest way to do so is by mate-
rial arrangements, for instance by inserting smartphones into cases that
reproduce the design of vintage Polaroid cameras (Fig. 2). However, what
is more intriguing is the way polaroiders appropriate mobile apps de-
signed to simulate analogue photography. It is obvious that using soft-
ware that mimics Polaroid photography is proscribed. What I did not ex-
pect to find is that polaroiders distinguish between apps that are com-
monly considered similar.




          Fig. 2 – An iPhone cased in a Polaroid-like shell. (Photo by the author).


   In particular, during my multi-sited ethnography I found evidence
that polaroiders clearly accord preference to Hipstamatic over Instagram.
They both are popular apps that digitally simulate the appearance of ana-
logue photography. As such, they are often considered as equivalent
means for practicing nostalgic “digital retro-photography” (Bartholeyns
2014; Bull 2012; Caoduro 2014). Thus, why do polaroiders accord pref-
erence to the former over the latter? An interviewee puts it in these terms:
          The concept is different, because with Instagram you shoot an or-
          dinary photograph and then work on it, while with Hipstamatic
          you have a camera in your hands, and you shoot knowing that
          you’re producing a photograph that is what it is... it’s like you have
          a film loaded. You choose the camera, lens, and film... although
34                                                                 Tecnoscienza – 7 (1)

         they are all simulated. This gives you the feeling and taste of ana-
         logue photography (Fabio, male, 43 years old).
    According to him, his preference is motivated by the fact that Hip-
stamatic – in ANT terms (Akrich 1992) – configures the user through a
script of actions that is perceived as coherent with the practice of ana-
logue photography. While Instagram is recognized as “digital”, for it
produces transient photographs that have to be post-processed, Hip-
stamatic has an “analogue taste”, since the photographs it produces “are
what they are”. That is, they are seen as “real” outcomes of the interac-
tion between photographer and technology, during which the former
makes his choices and the latter “does the rest”. Although it is a simula-
tion, the doings and distribution of competences are perceived as coher-
ent to those of instant photography.
    To summarize and conclude the first part of my argument, I would
argue that, with the diffusion of digital photography, Polaroid’s increas-
ing obsolescence opened up new opportunities for aspirational amateurs
to reconfigure existing boundaries between mainstream and niche photo-
graphic practices. Those amateurs who, despite the cultural ambivalence
of Polaroid technology (Buse 2008), had already adopted it, redefined
three main elements mainly pertaining to its material dimension, in a dia-
lectical opposition to digital photography. These elements (physical ma-
nipulation, process unpredictability, and the reflective attuning of sub-
jects to technological constraints) have evolved together with a new form
of authenticity that polaroiders feel should be preserved. In this process,
former Polaroid users redefined their own identity as “polaroiders”, and
became a relevant social group whose aims are to resist digital photog-
raphy and to contrast the production of Polaroid’s obsolescence. Con-
temporary instant photography could thus be described as new practice.
If I had to find a new label to distinguish it from its predecessor, it would
be “Polaroid 2.0”, since it reflects both its newness and the self-
identification of practitioners with their privileged old technology5.


5. The Double Logic of Remediation and the Digital
Circulation of Polaroid Photographs
    The transformation of instant photography into a niche practice that
lives on the periphery of, and in opposition to, digital photography ap-
pears to be an opportunity to study the co-production of the visual and
the material, since Polaroid’s ingrained physicality has inspired new visual
practices and has taken on a new saliency by virtue of its threatened obso-


     While I was writing this paper, I discovered that the label “Polaroid 2.0”
     5

had been already coined by Peter Buse in his new book on Polaroid photography,
The Camera Does the Rest (2016).
Minniti                                                                              35
lescence. This process of co-production has also shaped the social. In my
study, this is made clear by the fact that geographically and socially dis-
persed individuals, by connecting to each other, and by collectively re-
working the meaning of instant photography, came to constitute a rele-
vant social group with the power of attracting a new producer of instant
films (Bijker 1995).
    Another way of understanding how this assemblage, or photography
complex (Hevia 2009), works, is that of considering how a wide range of
heterogeneous ingredients, relating to different dimensions (material,
symbolic, and performative) are integrated into photographic practices
(Hand 2012; Shove, Watson, Hand and Ingram 2007). In the case of con-
temporary instant photography, this process of integration can be thought
of as the outcome of both the dis-integration of pre-existing practices and
the re-integration of old elements, together with new ones, into a new
practical entity. Out-of-production cameras, reinvented films, new forms
of manipulations inspired by their old versions, an unprecedented ac-
ceptance of imperfections, online competitions and real-life “pola-
parties”, digital and analogue technologies, all these elements are coher-
ently integrated into a practical entity within which the old and the new
are inextricably layered.
    In my study, perhaps the most emblematic example of how the social,
the material, and the visual are co-produced, and at the same time of how
old and new ingredients are assembled-in-practice, is the digital repro-
duction and circulation of Polaroid photo-objects. The digital circulation
of Polaroids is an essential part of instant photography practice. It lets
photographers show their work and coordinate community activities,
such as exhibitions and competitions, in a similar manner to that of digi-
tal amateurs (Grinter 2005). It also plays a prominent role in recruiting
new practitioners, which is fundamental to the reproduction of practices
(Shove, Pantzar and Hand 2007).
    Digital circulation, for example, creates a pre-requisite for enrolment
by making instant practice visible:
          I believed that the film era was actually over. I didn’t believe that
          films might still exist, like millions of people I still meet who ask
          me ‘What? Do you shoot film? Where do you find them? Do they
          still exist?’. That is, I believed so, believed that everything was dig-
          ital. But I was wrong. Because I’d never sought information about
          that... so I just didn’t think films were available anymore, don’t
          know why, due to a discourse about times, about ages. Thus, at
          the time I’d dedicated myself only to digital photography. But
          then I discovered that film does still exist! (Alba, female, 43 years
          old).
    Reaching more visibility is thus important for contrasting the domi-
nant perception of technical innovation as a break with the past. Digital
circulation has also been crucial for both the emergence of a new Polar-
oid culture and the transformation of Polaroid users into a relevant social
36                                                              Tecnoscienza – 7 (1)

group. At the beginning of the Polaroid re-appropriation movement, ear-
ly adopters connected to each other by sharing their Polaroids on web-
sites dedicated to the preservation of instant photography. TIP recruited
several of those activists as “Testers” during the experimental stage of
film production. The testers’ duty was to test newly produced films and
ship the resulting photographs, together with a form compiled with tech-
nical data, back to TIP headquarters. However, the programme was likely
intended to recruit allies (and future customers) within the networks al-
ready established by Polaroid users, rather than actually test films. An in-
terviewee expressed his doubtfulness about both the programme and the
new products:
         I shipped my first photographs and commented: ‘Are you really
         going to sell this stuff?’ About three weeks later I got an email
         with their response: ‘Wow! Wonderful work!’ And there I
         thought: ‘Are they kidding me? That stuff has to be thrown away’
         (Gabriele, male, 67 years old).
    This quotation also reveals that technical imperfections were not tol-
erated at the beginning. Although still controversial, the acceptance of
imperfections has increased over time with the re-articulation of instant
photography – a few years later, for instance, the polaroider quoted above
took part in the organization of the already mentioned “Spare Instants”
exhibition. TIP also contributed to this change by distributing defective
film batches. According to two interviewees, TIP furthermore exerted
some form of control by expelling from the Tester programme those who
publicly criticised its products (they both reported that this happened to
themselves). Notwithstanding the bewilderment of some Testers, in 2010
TIP started publishing on its website a collection of photographs shot on
its newly produced films, and this created a hype around Polaroid tech-
nology, attracting new practitioners6.
    If we consider the importance polaroiders attribute to the concrete-
ness of analogue photographs, the digital reproduction and circulation of
such photographs raise questions about how practitioners maintain prac-
tical coherence between the meanings they give to Polaroid’s photo-
objectness and its translation into digital form. Since polaroiders, who
contrast and deprecate digital photography, eventually circulate their
photographs digitally, how can they discard the physical substance of Po-
laroids without losing coherence with their own resistant identity?
    Interestingly, the conversion of Polaroids into digital data files was a
fundamental part of the way in which the Polaroid Corporation imagined
instant photography’s unlikely future in an “image-dependent businesses”
as early as in 1991 (Buse 2010a). Moreover, Polaroid’s research and de-


     These early photographs marked the foundation of “The Impossible Collec-
     6

tion”, which explicitly refers to the famous Polaroid Collection founded by Edwin
H. Land.
Minniti                                                                   37
velopment activities during the 1980s have been guided by an equally un-
likely, strong sense that customers would also want instant prints in the
digital age. This “ontological truth” led the company to invest in develop-
ing digital technologies which also produce instant prints on Polaroid
films, and to fail in responding quickly to the market’s ongoing shift from
analogue to digital imaging (Tripsas and Gavetti 2000). On the one hand,
these considerations make the role of users even more significant, since it
has been more effective than that of the producer in redefining the mean-
ing of Polaroid’s objectness and finding a way to keep instant photog-
raphy alive. On the other hand, they make questions about how the digi-
tal conversion of analogue prints may be coherently integrated into ana-
logue photographic practices intriguing.
    Clearly, in this regard, the digital scanning of instant photographs is a
crucial and delicate process, as it transforms physical objects into two-
dimensional images. Polaroiders have developed two main strategies to
manage scanning. The first one consists in reproducing elements that per-
tain to the physical form of these photographs. This is well exemplified
by the reproduction of the iconic frame within which images are con-
tained. To give some numbers, in a sample of 600 Polaroids, recently
published by members of the three communities I studied, 544 are
scanned with their own frames. Thus, 90.7% of the sample is composed
by photographs reproduced together with their physical support. This
number increases if we consider that the remaining 9.3% often show oth-
er material elements, such as traces of physical interventions and mixed
materials applied on the images’ surface.
    It could be argued that this strategy aims to transform digital repro-
ductions into meaningful carriers of analogue practice. As the objectness
of instant photography has taken on a new saliency in opposition to digi-
tal immateriality, this oppositional meaning is preserved through visual
inscriptions that remind of the socio-material production of photo-
objects. In this sense, in the process of scanning, polaroiders try to not
reduce photo-objects into two-dimensional images. Instead, they make
visible the physical substance of the “analogue experience” by represent-
ing supports, manipulations, and imperfections, that is, the objects, do-
ings, and meanings which constitute their practice. It could be said that,
when translated by digital means, exposed instant films become even
more “integral”, in the sense that they integrate all the fundamental ele-
ments of polaroiders’ practice.
    The second strategy, which I define as “casual scanning”, consists in
diminishing the visibility of the mediation of digital technology, either
concretely or symbolically. This is mostly accomplished by avoiding to set
digital software scanning parameters. So, regarding their scanning prac-
tice, the majority of interviewees reported that they “just put the photo-
graph into the scanner and then push the scan button”. However, setting
parameters is tolerated when it is limited to brightness/contrast; this is
justified by the aim of ideally making what it is seen on the screen to “be
38                                                                      Tecnoscienza – 7 (1)

the same as the print”. Digital mediation is underplayed also by discur-
sively devaluing technologies and competences, as it is exemplified by in-
terviewees underlining that polaroiders are “digital illiterates”, and that
their scanners are “poor”.
           I own a very poor scanner that is also a printer. You can see that
           [resulting images] are askew... but it’s ok. I like them as they are...
           as they come out from the camera, with their frame. Usually I
           don’t correct anything. I know you can digitally correct whatever
           you want, but what’s the point? In fact it makes no sense. I try to
           keep it as real and close to the original as possible. It’s good as it
           is... a Polaroid without frame isn’t a Polaroid at all, it’s not itself
           anymore (Carla, female, 44 years old).
    Besides the already addressed point about Polaroid’s frame, this ex-
cerpt also reveals that polaroiders take care of reducing the transforma-
tive effect of digitization during scanning. To their eyes, digital technolo-
gy “has no agency”, as far as they keep the whole process of digitization
“real” by reproducing Polaroids “as close as possible to how they come
out from the camera”. Digitization is thus a process during which practi-
tioners express ontological assumptions on the nature of instant photog-
raphy. These shared assumptions make a digitalized Polaroid an appro-
priate substitute for the original photo-object.7
    From an emic perspective, the logic adopted during scanning is thus
double: on the one hand, polaroiders visualize the material to materialize
the visual by displaying the physical elements of their photographs; on the
other hand, they deny the transformative effect of digitization, believing
that this denial could preserve the original material essence of analogue
photographs and thus not reducing it to the supposedly pure visuality of
digital photography.
    When considered together, these two strategies appear to correspond
to the twin logics of remediation, the process by which media are multi-
plied, and at the same time all traces of mediation are erased (Bolter and
Grusin 1999). Although digitalized Polaroids are clearly hypermediated
contents, for they are digital versions of film-based photographs, the style
of representation and the mode of production adopted by polaroiders
express a desire for immediacy, which “dictates that the medium itself
should disappear and leave us in the presence of the thing represented”
(Bolter and Grusin 1999, 6). These logics, grounded on shared ontologi-
cal assumptions about the status of the visual outcome, “make the viewer
forget the presence of the medium” in the very act of multiplying media
(Bolter and Grusin 1999, 272). The double logic of remediation can thus
be used to describe how digitalized Polaroids can remain “real” photo-
objects and retain their physical substance to the eyes of polaroiders.
    By following the logic of remediation, polaroiders achieve practical

     7
         See Sassoon (2004) for a different point of view on this issue.
Minniti                                                                             39
coherence: to them, digitalized Polaroids are not products of digital pho-
tography; they are “real”, since they are the same that photographers
keep in their hands; their objectness is not discarded, instead it is repro-
duced in a way that expresses polaroiders’ shared assumptions, know-
ledge, and the oppositional meaning of instant photography practice.
Digitization puts photo-objects in tension between mutability and immu-
tability, and this tension is managed through performative strategies driv-
en by the twin logics of remediation.
    The twofold goal of digitization strategies is thus to mobilize photo-
objects and at the same time attain a sort of immutability. When digital
Polaroids circulate, practitioners do not perceive the tension between
mutability and immutability. However, this tension becomes visible when
non-practitioners participate in polaroiders’ communities. Since member-
ship is usually open to participation, but new members are not yet en-
rolled – in the sense that they are not carriers of the practice (Shove, Pan-
tzar and Hand 2007) – the status of photographs circulating online may
be contested. In the following excerpt, a polaroider who manages an
online community describes what happens when new members upload
“fake” Polaroids created with digital software:
          It happened, especially at the beginning, that someone uploaded
          fake Polaroids. It was funny that after we had pointed out their
          fakery, they kept arguing that they are true. I didn’t ever under-
          stand that. This is the reason why we’ve put a disclaimer in our
          homepage. Basically, the idea is that you can upload only photo-
          graphs that can be touched. This is what the disclaimer says. Then,
          philosophical dissertations about digitization came out. It was
          bordering on the ridiculous... I’m very rude with people who pass
          something that is not. Our attitude is that of good faith, that is, I
          give you a chance to tell me if it’s true or not, and to delete it in
          case... Yet it usually happens like this: they get angry, do their
          philosophical dissertation on why and how, get offended, and
          leave. They get angry because it’s not fair, since with scanning it
          too becomes digital, etc. It’s simply a question of ethics... of giving
          things a name (Beatrice, female, 35 years old).
    Thus, conflicts may emerge from two contrasting ontological assump-
tions: practitioners distinguish between “true” Polaroids, which, although
digitalized, exist somewhere in a material form, and “fake” Polaroids,
which exist only in a digital form; non-practitioners, instead, do not rec-
ognize the objectness of whatever photograph circulates on the web.
Notwithstanding the non-practitioners’ argument that digitalized Polar-
oids are as transient and immaterial as digitally-produced photographs,
their status of immutable photo-objects is taken for granted, produced
through digitization strategies, and constantly defended by practitioners.
Those who do not share this practical knowledge are excluded from the
community. In this context, digitization and digital circulation are thus
political acts by which social boundaries are traced and maintained.
40                                                           Tecnoscienza – 7 (1)

6. Conclusions
    With this article I attempted to show how the ongoing re-
appropriation of analogue instant photography can be “thought beyond
the visual”. I drew upon both STS literature highlighting the role of ma-
terial artefacts and users, and upon “photo-materialist” scholars, who
stressed the need of reorienting the research on photography in order to
not reduce the object of study to fixed entities constituting the practice of
photography, such as images, technical artefacts, or photographers. In
developing my argument, I highlighted two processes through which the
visual, the material, and the social are co-produced.
    The first process relates to the dynamics of socio-technical change. At
this regard, I discussed how the diffusion and dominance of digital pho-
tography stimulated a counter-action of technological resistance, which
successfully reversed the process of obsolescence of instant photography.
This phenomenon emerged from the mutual reconfiguration of Polaroid
users and technology. Previously dispersed users connected with each
other and emerged as a relevant social group with the power of attracting
a new producer of instant films, redefining along this process their collec-
tive identity as “polaroiders”. On the other hand, the use of Polaroid
technology acquired a new oppositional meaning, grounded on the defi-
nition of a new form of authenticity, based on an opposition polaroiders
envision against the perceived lack of authenticity of digital photography.
Contemporary instant photography could thus be described as a new
practice, within which old and new elements are integrated together in a
renewed configuration. If I had to find a new label to distinguish it from
its predecessors, it would be “Polaroid 2.0”, since this definition reflects
both the newness of the practice and the self-identification of practition-
ers with their privileged old technology.
    The second process I focused on is the process of remediation of Po-
laroid photo-objects that takes shape through the digital circulation of
Polaroids. Here I showed how the digitization of Polaroid photographs, a
passage that is fundamental to the organization and reproduction of in-
stant photography practice, can be understood in terms of a remediation
process through which digital photo-objects are made coherent with their
physical counterparts. I described two digitization strategies developed
by polaroiders, that they believe can preserve Polaroid’s objectness into
digital form. By adopting the logic of remediation polaroiders make of
digitalized Polaroids appropriate substitutes for the original photo-
objects. This lets them coherently integrate digitization into their ana-
logue practice. Finally, I illustrated how the circulation of these “digital
photo-objects” forces practitioners to constantly defend the boundaries
and authenticity of their practice. Conflicts about the ontology of digital
photographs between practitioners and non-practitioners may thus reveal
how photography’s material status is socially (re)produced through circu-
lation.
Minniti                                                                          41


References
Adams, A. (1978 [1963]) Polaroid Land Photography, Boston, New York Graphic
   Society.
Akrich, M. (1992) The De-Scription of Technical Objects, in W.E. Bijker and J.
   Law (eds.), Shaping Technology/Building Society, Cambridge, MIT Press, pp.
   205-224.
Appadurai, A. (ed.) (1986) The Social Life of Things, Cambridge, Cambridge Uni-
   versity Press.
Bartholeyns, G. (2014) The Instant Past: Nostalgia and Digital Retro Photography,
   in K. Niemeyer (ed.), Media and Nostalgia: Yearning for the Past, Present and
   Future, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 51-69.
Batchen, G. (1997) Photography’s Objects. Albuquerque: University of New Mex-
   ico Art Museum.
Bijker, W.E. (1995) Of Bicycles, Bakelites, and Bulbs. Toward a Theory of Soci-
    otechnical Change, Cambridge, MIT Press.
Bolter, J.D. and Grusin, R. (1999) Remediation. Understanding New Media, Cam-
    bridge, MIT Press.
Bonanos, C. (2012) Instant. The Story of Polaroid, New York, Princeton Architec-
   tural Press.
Bull, S. (2012) ‘Digital Photography Never Looked So Analogue’: Retro Camera
    Apps, Nostalgia and the Hauntological Photograph, in “Photoworks”, 18, pp.
    24-25.
Buse, P. (2007) Photography Degree Zero: Cultural History of the Polaroid Image,
   in “New Formations”, 62, pp. 29-44.
Buse, P. (2008) Surely Fades Away. Polaroid Photography and the Contradictions of
   Cultural Value, in “Photographies”, 1 (2), pp. 221-238.
Buse, P. (2010a) Polaroid into Digital: Technology, Cultural Form, and the Social
   Practices of Snapshot Photography, in “Continuum: Journal of Media & Cul-
   tural Studies”, 24 (2), pp. 215-230.
Buse, P. (2010b) The Polaroid Image as Photo-Object, in “Journal of Visual Cul-
   ture”, 9 (2), pp. 189-207.
Buse, P. (2016) The Camera Does the Rest: How Polaroid Changed Photography,
   Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
Caoduro, E. (2014) Photo Filter Apps: Understanding Analogue Nostalgia in the
   New Media Ecology, in “Networking Knowledge: Journal of the MeCCSA
   Postgraduate Network”, 7 (2), pp. 67-82.
Di Bello, P. (2008) Seductions and Flirtations. Photographs, Histories, Theories, in
   “Photographies”, 1 (2), pp. 143-155.
Edgley, C. and Kiser, K. (1982) Polaroid Sex: Deviant Possibilities in a Technologi-
   cal Age, in “The Journal of American Culture”, 5 (1), pp. 59-64.
Edwards, E. (2001) Material Beings: Objecthood and Ethnographic Photographs, in
42                                                               Tecnoscienza – 7 (1)

     “Visual Studies”, 12 (1), pp. 67-75.
Edwards, E. (2009a) Photographs as Objects of Memory, in F. Candlin and R.
   Guins (eds.), The Object Reader, Abingdon and New York, Routledge, pp.
   331-342.
Edwards, E. (2009b) Thinking Photography Beyond the Visual?, in J.J. Long, A.
   Noble and E. Welch (eds.), Photography: Theoretical Snapshots, Abingdon
   and New York, Routledge, pp. 31-48.
Edwards, E. (2012) Objects of Affect: Photography Beyond the Image, in “Annual
   Review of Anthropology”, 41, pp. 221-234.
Edwards, E. and Hart, J. (eds.) (2004) Photographs Objects Histories. On the Ma-
   teriality of Images, London and New York, Routledge.
Eglash, R. (2004) Appropriating Technology: An Introduction, in R. Eglash, J.L.
   Croissant, G. Di Chiro and R. Fouché (eds.), Appropriating Technology. Ver-
   nacular Science and Social Power, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press,
   pp. VII-XXI.
Garud, R. and Munir, K. (2008) From Transaction to Transformation Costs: The
   Case of Polaroid’s SX-70 Camera, in “Research Policy”, 37 (4), pp. 690–705.
Griffin, M.S. (1987) Amateur Photography and Pictorial Aesthetics: Influences of
   Organization and Industry on Cultural Production, PhD Dissertation, Universi-
   ty of Pennsylvania.
Grinter, R.E. (2005) Words About Images: Coordinating Community in Amateur
   Photography, in “Computer Supported Cooperative Work”, 14 (2), pp. 161-
   188.
Hand, M. (2012) Ubiquitous Photography, Cambridge, Polity Press.
Henning, M. (2007) New Lamps for Old: Photography, Obsolescence and Social
   Change, in C. Acland (ed.), Residual Media, Minneapolis, University of Min-
   nesota Press, pp. 48-65.
Hevia, J.L. (2009) The Photography Complex: Exposing Boxer-Era China (1900-
   1901), Making Civilization, in R. Morris (ed.), Photographies East: The Camera
   and its Histories in East and Southeast Asia, Durham and London, Duke Uni-
   versity Press, pp. 79-99.
Jenkins, R.V. (1975a) Images and Enterprise: Technology and the American Photo-
   graphic Industry 1839 to 1925, Baltimore and London, Johns Hopkins Univer-
   sity Press.
Jenkins, R.V. (1975b) Technology and the Market: George Eastman and the Ori-
   gins of Mass Amateur Photography, in “Technology and Culture”, 16 (1), pp.
   1-19.
Kline, R.R. and Pinch, T.J. (1996) Users as Agents of Technological Change: The
    Social Construction of the Automobile in the Rural United States, in “Technol-
    ogy and Culture”, 37 (4), pp. 763-795.
Kopytoff, I. (1986) The Cultural Biography of Things, in A. Appadurai (ed.), The
   Social Life of Things, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 64-94.
Land, E.H. (1947) A New One-Step Photographic Process, in “Journal of the Opti-
   cal Society of America”, 37 (2), pp. 61-77.
Minniti                                                                         43
Land, E.H. (1972) Absolute One-Step Photography, in “Photographic Science and
   Engineering”, 16 (4), pp. 247-252.
Latour, B. (1988) The Pasteurization of France, Cambridge, Harvard University
   Press.
Latour, B. (1991) Technology is Society Made Durable, in J. Law (ed.), A Sociology
   of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination, London,
   Routledge, pp. 103-131.
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participa-
   tion, New York, Cambridge University Press.
Lindsay, C. (2003) From the Shadows: Users as Designers, Producers, Marketers,
   Distributors, and Technical Support, in N. Oudshoorn and T. Pinch (eds.),
   How Users Matter: The Co-construction of Users and Technology, Cambridge,
   MIT Press, pp. 29-50.
Mangano, D. (2011) LOMO Sapiens, in V. Del Marco and I. Pezzini (eds.), La fo-
  tografia. Oggetto teorico e pratica sociale, Roma, Edizioni Nuova Cultura, pp.
  275-295.
Marcus, G.E. (1995) Ethnography in/of the World System: The Emergence of Mul-
   ti-Sited Ethnography, in “Annual Review of Anthropology”, 24, pp. 95-117.
Pollen, A. and Baillie, J. (2012) Reconsidering Amateur Photography: An Introduc-
    tion, in http://eitherand.org/reconsidering-amateur-photography/reconsideri-
    ng-amateur-photography-annebella-pollen/ (retrieved January 03, 2015).
Poole, D. (1997) Vision, Race, and Modernity: A Visual Economy of the Andean
   Image World, Princeton, Princeton University Press.
Rose, G. and Tolia-Kelly, D.P. (eds.) (2012) Visuality/Materiality: Images, Objects
   and Practices, Farnham, Ashgate.
Sassoon, J. (2004) Photographic Materiality in the Age of Digital Reproduction, in
    E. Edwards and J. Hart (eds.) Photographs Objects Histories. On the Materiali-
    ty of Images, London and New York, Routledge, pp. 196-213.
Schwartz, D. (1986) Camera Club and Fine Art Photography: The Social Construc-
   tion of an Elite Code, in “Urban Life”, 15 (2), pp. 165-195.
Shove, E., Pantzar, M. and Hand, M. (2007) Recruitment and Reproduction: The
   Careers and Carriers of Digital Photography and Floorball, in “Human Affairs”,
   17 (2), pp. 154-167.
Shove, E., Watson, M., Hand, M., and Ingram, J. (2007) The Design of Everyday
   Life, Oxford, Berg.
Sicilia, D. (1977) Instant Photo/Instant Art: The New Simple Technique that Turns
    SX-70 Polaroid Photos into Beautiful Frameable Paintings, New York, Putnam.
Swenson, G.R. (1963) What is Pop Art? Answers from 8 Painters, Part 1, in “Art
   News”, 62 (7), p. 26.
Tripsas, M. and Gavetti, G. (2000) Capabilities, Cognition, and Inertia: Evidence
    from Digital Imaging, in “Strategic Management Journal”, 21 (10-11), pp.
    1147-1161.
Trotman, N. (2002) The Life of the Party: The Polaroid SX-70 Land Camera and
   Instant Film Photography, in “Afterimage”, 29 (6), pp. 10.
