Lomography predates the contraction and demise of mass film use. It wasn't conceived as dutchsteammachine suggests, as a plan to stretch the availability of film. Those are consequences of a business marketing strategy to make quirky cameras fashionable and offer the company a profit.
The evangelical hype is what irks some of us, the idea that Lomography is singlehandedly keeping film alive when they don't manufacture a single emulsion or design a camera (the very things that enable film photography), that snap shooting on basic cameras was an invention of the Lomography company when it comprised the majority of photographs ever taken, and Lomography has somehow put fun into photography that had died out if it ever previously existed. Those things are palpably untrue, yet people continue to propagate the myth.
The fact enthusiast magazines pushed photography as an earnest pursuit requiring expensive equipment and an extraordinary degree of skill, was never a position endorsed by the general public who were happy to point, shoot and pick their prints up from a high street lab, in exactly the way the Lomography company promotes as their own invention. Lomography's business supporters underline their hubris by insisting anyone who gets it is a fun loving, youthful and creative sensibility, and those who aren't completely on board are gear obsessed stick in the mud's ungrateful for Lomography's charitable attempts to keep film photography alive. For those of us who have enjoyed democratic, mass produced photography based on simple cameras for decades, such claims are breath-taking in their presumption. My sense of humour is fully intact, as is my knowledge of marketing and photographic history.