Aflutternation

As I stared at this photograph, trying to think of a title, Flutternation came to mind. So I Googled it to see what would appear. First, I was asked "Did you mean Glitternation?"Well, no, that would be a completely different image. There were hits for flutternation. Several concerned something called Social Butterfly TV, and which people had posted things about being furry and social and whatnot. There was also a cardiologist who specializes in atrial fibrillation and has an organization called Flutter National.

So avoid confusion, I added an "A" to make this my own, and frankly, I like it better because the flag is aflutter. As a nation, we are aflutter. As a symbol for America, I love our flag. But that is all it is: a symbol. Honor it as you see fit. Or not.

I remember hearing about young people being arrested because they used flag patches to mend their jeans. I remember Mick Jagger causing a controversy by draping himself in a flag (probably Great Britain's, but still). I remember people plastering their vehicles with American flag stickers after 9/11, as if to ward off terrorism. ("The best lack all conviction, while the worst / Are full of passionate intensity," eh Yeats?)

This all seems silly. The mythologist Joseph Campbell wrote about the masks of god. The concept behind this book is that the word god, the name god, and the image of god are the final obstacles to experiencing god. Using this same reasoning, the flag essentially masks what America and freedom are all about. The flag is just a bunch of strips of cloth. The Bible is just some ink markings on some pages. A cartoon of Muhammad is just some squiggles drawn by an artist. None of these things ARE the things they represent.

This photograph exemplifies the state of the nation, blown around by whatever winds are passing through, some I agree with and some I abhor. For each of us, the answer is blowing in the wind -- at least some of the time.

A Prefix Occurring in Loanwords from Latin Meaning 'Backward'

This image is a double dip of retro. Or is it?

First, it's a photograph of a sign (too easy, I know) that actually says retro, albeit behind that big arrow. Second,  it was taken with a retro camera, an original Diana camera. And as an added treat, (sprinkles on top, if you will) I used real film -- Portra 800 (part of my ongoing experiment using really good film in really crappy cameras).

The Urban Dictionary defines retro as, "A contemporary object or style containing elements of, but not replicating, an object or style from a previous era." By this definition, my image is not truly retro at all. The camera is not contemporary. The photo does not really contain elements "of" anything; it's the real deal. At best, it is retro from the perspective of using a camera and image capturing process from a previous era -- except that film and analog cameras are still here. I will not concede that that image-makers have been overcome or overrun by their digital cousins.

Maybe I should be content with defining this image for what it is not. It is not a new image in an old style. It is not an old image in a new style. It is not...hmmm.

My head hurts. Must be this pork pie hat...

P.S. I own several Diana cameras. I name them because it is easier to keep track of the quirks of each one. This is my latest addition, called Dad. That's because my Dad found it at an estate sale. I think Dad takes pretty pictures.

P.P.S. After I posted this blog, something else occurred to me: By the act of taking a photograph, I am capturing a moment just as it passes into the past. So waiting to develop the film, I am looking forward to looking back. I am not a retro photographer. Rather, I am a retrograde photographer.