Closing Thoughts
![Picture](/uploads/1/8/9/8/18988651/7929149.jpg?496)
At the beginning of our research, our task seemed a daunting one—to examine and generalize the livelihoods, and even further, lives, of countless former Kodak employees and tertiary members of the Rochester community. Kodak, formerly one of the largest and most profitable businesses in the United States, essentially breathed life into the greater Rochester area, and sustained it economically for much of the twentieth century. Its swift demise had, and continues to have, a profound effect on the lives of everyone in the surrounding area, knowingly or not.
While many people may see the massive job losses that came with the deterioration of Kodak, this does not quite paint the whole picture. From our various interviews, one theme remained consistent; the people of Rochester and those affected by Kodak’s decline have demonstrated resilience in the face of potential economic depression. Those who left Kodak, or were left by Kodak, for that matter, were able to make use of their talents elsewhere and further contribute to the area. These talented workers (and jobs) did not simply disappear. Rather, their composition changed and Rochester continues to thrive in a way that cities like Buffalo and Detroit that faced similar obstacles were unable to do.
The very existence of this project speaks volumes of Kodak’s continued positive influence in Rochester—this University was vastly enabled to succeed through the generosity and foresight of George Eastman, the founder of Kodak.
Often, Kodak is criticized for lacking the foresight to adjust to the emergence of the digital camera, seen as the death knell of the print film industry, but Eastman proved otherwise; his contributions to the University and their benefits to Rochester may even outweigh that and those of the existence of Kodak. In the end, what we determined is this—although Kodak may be more or less dead, there is life after Kodak.
While many people may see the massive job losses that came with the deterioration of Kodak, this does not quite paint the whole picture. From our various interviews, one theme remained consistent; the people of Rochester and those affected by Kodak’s decline have demonstrated resilience in the face of potential economic depression. Those who left Kodak, or were left by Kodak, for that matter, were able to make use of their talents elsewhere and further contribute to the area. These talented workers (and jobs) did not simply disappear. Rather, their composition changed and Rochester continues to thrive in a way that cities like Buffalo and Detroit that faced similar obstacles were unable to do.
The very existence of this project speaks volumes of Kodak’s continued positive influence in Rochester—this University was vastly enabled to succeed through the generosity and foresight of George Eastman, the founder of Kodak.
Often, Kodak is criticized for lacking the foresight to adjust to the emergence of the digital camera, seen as the death knell of the print film industry, but Eastman proved otherwise; his contributions to the University and their benefits to Rochester may even outweigh that and those of the existence of Kodak. In the end, what we determined is this—although Kodak may be more or less dead, there is life after Kodak.