SNAP HAPPYOne Man Took a Polaroid Photo Every Day for 18 Years
INTRODUCTION BY JAMES KNIGHT, INTERVIEW BY CHRISTOPHER HARDING New York artist Jamie Livingston took a Polaroid photograph every day of his life for 18 years, between 1979 and 1997, with a Polaroid SX-70 camera. He called the project “Photo of the Day”.
Were this a set of isolated images it would be hard to tell much about a person. As it goes, there are a lot of days in 18 years. That means a hell of a lot of Polaroids and no matter how zany he is feeling on any given day, as a cumulative body of work, the photos present a unique window into one person’s life.
|
Click here for a selection of Jamie Livingston’s Polaroids
|
|
It is a strange feeling to discover simple things about a man you will never meet. Like which American football team he supports, and that he seems to be a film-maker. And that he likes ice cream.
The series becomes particularly moving as Livingston chronicles his own declining health as he fights brain cancer. Throughout, he maintains a sense of humour, goofing around for shots with wigs and showing off his shaved noggin for his trusty SX-70. On October 25, 1997, on his 41st birthday, Livingston dies in hospital. This too is logged.
The project has been lovingly archived by his friends Betsy Reid and Hugh Crawford and can be accessed in its entirety online. The Polaroids were exhibited in 2007 at Bard College in New York, where Livingston studied and began the project. This is the first time that the shots have been published. We spoke to Hugh about his friend’s legacy. Vice: What do you think initially motivated Jamie to take a photograph every day of his life for 18 years?
Hugh Crawford: I think it started out pretty casually, and then he kind of became increasingly committed as the project progressed. I don’t think that he really became aware of the scope or the sense of it being this epic project until about four or five years in. Does it feel weird laying your friend’s life bare for anyone who cares to see it online?
No, I think Jamie operated in the tradition of Stan Brakhage and others who made art from their life, and in turn made their life their art. I’d like to think it is what he would have wanted. What is unusual about Jamie’s work is that its narrative encompassed pretty much his entire adult life. Only one picture a day, only one lifetime to do it in. That’s true of everybody of course, but not as consciously as this. Can a whole life really be represented by a single glimpse a day?
Having known Jamie, I’d say that if you take even a small sample of the 6,600 or so shots, it becomes a stunningly accurate portrayal. It’s scary. You exhibited the work in 2007 in the college where Jamie started the project. Was an exhibition Jamie’s intention?
I think so. He would annually display all the photos to date up until the twelfth year or so on this basketball court. We’d all help out, it would take four days to lay out and cover the entire court. Where do you think Jamie fits in terms of the direction that photography has taken since he started the project?
You have to remember that when Jamie started the project it was during the late 70s and early 80s in downtown Manhattan. We were all soaking in the Mekas brothers’ film-making, Warren Sonbert was a frequent dinner guest, which you can see in the photos, as was Adolfas Mekas. Jamie’s neighbour upstairs in the loft was Cindy Sherman, so there was a lot of that autobiographical art-making in the air. The work that Jamie was producing in stills and other film-makers were creating in music videos and advertising spread that sensibility to a broader public and was a precursor to a lot of what we see on the internet today. Jamie wasn’t keeping any secrets. All of the overlapping relationships were there to see, much like some of the more live-your-life-in-public blogs of today. I think that Jamie was sort of ahead of his time and, by keeping his work in the public realm, people can see that. For more, go to photooftheday.hughcrawford.com
See all articles by this contributor Anonymous, on May 21, 2009 wrote:
It strange that he passed around the time they discontinued making Polaroid film. | | Anonymous, on Mar 17, 2009 wrote:
im guessing he’s got pretty good at that then, a little bit selfish seein as there aint loads left anymore or sumin cuz the factories got closed down?tsk tsk.
- INES | |
| AnilM, on Mar 16, 2009 wrote:
I agree with some of the comments about Polaroid being too expensive. I used to make Polaroid art myself in the 80s and could not afford them as student, had to nick (oops, mea culpa) the packs. Finally gave up. To get a good work I needed several takes, which make it even more expensive. Just figure out the cost for 30 usable Polaroids per month. However I admit, the medium has its beauty. | | Anonymous, on Mar 13, 2009 wrote:
the blurred one of him in hospital with nurses around him creeps me out so much, death throes. | |
| Fuck Russia, on Mar 5, 2009 wrote:
Fuck Mothafuckin’ Russia! | |
| probono, on Mar 4, 2009 wrote:
There is no way in hell i could manage to take a photo of myself every day. it would start great and then I’d miss one and then the whole thing would be fucked. perhaps he lied. And the death picture makes me think of the guys from alarma. | | Anonymous, on Mar 4, 2009 wrote:
honestly I can’t think of a better medium in which to do a project like this than polaroid. yeah, the quality isn’t amazing but that’s the beauty of it. polaroids just have this hazy dream-like quality, that makes everything look more beautiful than it does in cold harsh reality - pretty much like the human memory. | | Anonymous, on Mar 4, 2009 wrote:
cindy sherman? jeez, was the apartment building a co-op for ridiculously self righteous "artists"? lots of these are great, don’t get me wrong, but whenever people turn the camera/canvas/lyrics on themself it only looks arrogant. | | Anonymous, on Mar 4, 2009 wrote:
yeah. if he’s stuck with one year it would have been more tempting to me but trying to sift through 18 years of photos sounds tiring. | |
| somehowkelle, on Mar 3, 2009 wrote:
too much of a good thing if you ask me. | |
| shep, on Mar 3, 2009 wrote:
i know where you’re going, but you’re missing the point. polaroids have a warmth and immediacy that most 35mm cameras don’t. any of the photos seen here wouldn’t look nearly as nice if they had been shot on 35mm film. they would be boring. look at the skin tones. you don’t get that from most cameras. that’s why the yashicas and similar point and shoots are so popular. they give a certain feel that a disposable’s not going to give you. | | Anonymous, on Mar 3, 2009 wrote:
as much as i love polaroid part of me thinks they only had a really great marketing team. if you take photo quality, most of the consumer grade stuff they did was subpar. it looks great, no question, but for what’s generally considered desirable characteristics in film, it’s not very good. | | Anonymous, on Mar 3, 2009 wrote:
Polaroids are beautiful. It’s still tough to imagine that my kids won’t know what it’s like to shoot real film. | | Anonymous, on Mar 3, 2009 wrote:
i wonder if any of the noodle eaters were chewing on the same noodle and bumped faces like in lady and the tramp. i don’t see any meatballs so they must have already nudged them over using their noses. one of them still has tomato sauce on her nose. | |
| komodo, on Mar 2, 2009 wrote:
he had to miss a day here and there. at least once in 18 years i know he was too hungover to leave the bed. had to be. | | Anonymous, on Mar 2, 2009 wrote:
Polaroid is dead to me. Only the trustfunders can afford $2 a photo, and I’m not one of the lucky few with freezers full of Polaroid film. Poladroid is impressive, but it’s not the same and it makes me feel like I’m cheating. | | Anonymous, on Mar 2, 2009 wrote:
Polaroids aren’t dead. Just the company "Polaroid"..you can still buy the film from kodak and stuff | | Anonymous, on Mar 2, 2009 wrote:
"on his 41st birthday, Livingston dies in hospital. This too is logged."
does that mean someone took a picture of him when he died? gross. | | Anonymous, on Mar 2, 2009 wrote:
THE IMPOSSIBLE PROJECT
LOOK INTO IT! FILM by 2010!!! HELP HELP HELP! | | Anonymous, on Feb 27, 2009 wrote:
Anonymous, on Feb 27, 2009 wrote:
is that a cyclops lick-n-stick?
yeah and it’s at it’s optimal point in life - slight peeling and cracking. | |
| sweetpeen16, on Feb 27, 2009 wrote:
That is dedication. I have trouble enough remembering to brush my teeth everyday let alone take a picture. | | Anonymous, on Feb 27, 2009 wrote:
"Can a whole life really be represented by a single glimpse a day?"
to say yes is a huge over generalization. it depends. what if they just took pictures of random strangers they walked passed. That would give no information about their life. | | Anonymous, on Feb 27, 2009 wrote:
is that a cyclops lick-n-stick? | | Anonymous, on Feb 27, 2009 wrote:
Anonymous, on Feb 27, 2009 wrote:
did he have a theme or basic subject to the photographs or were they just random shots?
duh, the "theme" was taking one photo a day for 18 years. simple enough, isn’t it? | | Anonymous, on Feb 27, 2009 wrote:
forgot to include this. here are some examples from the poladroid flickr group:
flickr.com/groups/poladroid/ | | Anonymous, on Feb 27, 2009 wrote:
if you’re still reeling over the demise of polaroid, you should check out poladroid. i’ve been addicted to it for a few weeks. the results are the best i’ve seen for the faux-laroid look.
poladroid.net | | Anonymous, on Feb 27, 2009 wrote:
bard? jesus, how much did your parents drop on that? don’t get me wrong, it’s a beautiful school and highly thought of, but there’s no way an arts education is worth that. | |
| The Host, on Feb 27, 2009 wrote:
The SX-70 is still the best camera Polaroid ever made, in my opinion. I almost bought one, but I’m glad I didn’t since even time-expired film is over a dollar a shot. That’s fucking ridiculous. | | Anonymous, on Feb 27, 2009 wrote:
Some friends of mine did a strictly-Polaroid show and called it "Instant Gratification". All the photos shown were available for purchase and you could take them home immediately. Good idea, I thought. | | Anonymous, on Feb 27, 2009 wrote:
oohh. thats a smart business idea. If they sold off each polaroid they would make sooo much money.
VV | | | Next 30 comments > |
| |
