| In an article
about the emergence of mass-produced holograms (DESIGN
364/61), James Woudhuysen predicted an 'upsurge in
publicly-exhibited bad taste.' He implied that no-one is thinking
inventively about the potential of three-dimensional laser-made
photographs.
That is not surprising. Optical
scientists working on the technique in the 'sixties were often content
to demonstrate the dramatic nature of the holographic process by using
it to depict commonplace objects. Holograms of chessboards abounded ––
to such an extent that the uninitiated observer could have been
forgiven for thinking there was some important though unfathomable
connection between holography and the ancient art of chess.
Although
it is entirely appropriate to use holography to make replicas of
objects (and much easier to pack a suitcase full of holographic copies
of machine tools than to freight an actual demonstration product), it
is hardly the most exciting way to use the technique. Of course the
scientists claim that it is not their job to consider the aesthetics of
the process. Their goal is to reproduce a fully three-dimensional
natural colour image which is indistinguishable from the original
object. And, if and when such hyper-realism becomes possible, it will
certainly be useful. For example, holographic duplicates could be made
of objects which are rare, valuable, difficult to transport or in
imminent danger of decay (indeed, holograms are currently being made of
many of the valuable artefacts stored in the Hermitage Museum in
Leningrad: other museums can 'borrow' the exhibits, or the public can
purchase them – in holographic form). But our skills of mechanical
image making seem to have progressed so far towards realism that
individual interpretation over and above the original choice of subject
appears forgotten.
Perhaps the cold curse of
realism, once placed at photography's doorstep, has finally found its
resting-place in the house of holography. Yet we now dismiss claims
that realism renders photography uninteresting. Photography produces
images which are flat; it does not always reproduce colour as we see
it; it presents us with only one point of view. Photographers exploit
all these effects to lend an individual interpretation to a particular
subject. So holography's critics should wait before they accuse it of
being inescapably realistic.
For the moment the
novelty of holograms ensures that almost any holographic display
attracts interest and attention. Advertisers are bound to exploit this:
even holographic poster hoardings are in the offing, once the technical
and economic problems of 'scaling up' the holographic apparatus are
solved. A pity, because this particular type of advertising displays
will be the only way in which the vast majority of the public will
become at all familiar with the holographic image. And a hologram of a
can of baked beans has no more intrinsic interest than the original can.
Familiarity with the process will inevitably lead to boredom
unless enterprising artists and graphic designers take a closer look at
the holographic process and isolate those eye-catching visual tricks ––
often applied with only subconscious awareness –– which have assured
the effectiveness and longevity of other visual media.
Holography is appropriate when it is used to depict aspects of our
world which it would otherwise be impossible to see; or when it is used
to depict the world in a different, possibly artificial, way which
exploits its unique features. Identical criteria can be applied to
other visual media, and usually are, but the high technology glitter of
holography has lent to it a mystique which acts to circumvent serious
critical appraisal.
Holography does not benefit
from being portrayed as a piece of science fiction made fact. This only
increases expectations and ultimately leads to disappointment. What
holography does need is to be appraised in a calm and unemotional way
–– and used where appropriate. Only then can it attain the
respectability accorded to established technical media –– photography,
film and television –– with which it has so much in common.
Michael Wenyon
Michael Wenyon
is author of Understanding Holography
Design
magazine, London, November 1979 |
