Our digital technologies aren’t politically neutral. The young person who cannot or will not be alone, converse with family, go out with friends, attend a lecture or perform a job without monitoring her smartphone is an emblem of our economy’s leechlike attachment to our very bodies. Digital technology is capitalism in hyperdrive, injecting its logic of consumption and promotion, of monetization and efficiency, into every waking minute.
“Hello Barbie” was released on 14 February at a toy fair in America- she’s wi-fi enabled and records kids conversations to develop authentic, real-time responses to them. While the tech press and others are dubbing her “eavesdropping Barbie” and “creepy” she’s not the first doll to be internet enabled. See Cayla, a talking doll that uses speech-recognition and Google’s translation tools, that was subsequently hacked. Besides the obvious questions around privacy and safety, what does this mean for the future of play?
Original Article courtesy Gawker
In a clarion call that will likely rival his insta-legendary “everything’s amazing and nobody’s happy” diatribe delivered nearly five years ago on Late Night with Conan O’Brien, comedian Louis C.K. explains — to Conan, once again — exactly why he dislikes the culture of smartphones and why he would never get one for his kids.
C.K. starts off by suggesting that smartphone usage is the reason kids today are meaner:
I think these things are toxic, especially for kids…they don’t look at people when they talk to them and they don’t build empathy. You know, kids are mean, and it’s ’cause they’re trying it out. They look at a kid and they go, ‘you’re fat,’ and then they see the kid’s face scrunch up and they go, ‘oh, that doesn’t feel good to make a person do that.’ But they got to start with doing the mean thing. But when they write ‘you’re fat,’ then they just go, ‘mmm, that was fun, I like that.’
From there, C.K. moved on to expound on the larger issue: The negative emotional effect that smartphones have on grown-ups.
While C.K. agrees that smartphones can help create a sense of community, he believes that therein lies the problem:
You need to build an ability to just be yourself and not be doing something. That’s what the phones are taking away, is the ability to just sit there. That’s being a person. Because underneath everything in your life there is that thing, that empty—forever empty. That knowledge that it’s all for nothing and that you’re alone. It’s down there.
And sometimes when things clear away, you’re not watching anything, you’re in your car, and you start going, ‘oh no, here it comes. That I’m alone.’ It’s starts to visit on you. Just this sadness. Life is tremendously sad, just by being in it…
That’s why we text and drive. I look around, pretty much 100 percent of the people driving are texting. And they’re killing, everybody’s murdering each other with their cars. But people are willing to risk taking a life and ruining their own because they don’t want to be alone for a second because it’s so hard.
Finally, C.K. brings it all together with an anecdote about the time he was in his car listening to a Bruce Springsteen song (“Jungleland“) that made him really sad:
And I go, ‘oh, I’m getting sad, gotta get the phone and write “hi” to like 50 people’…then I said, ‘you know what, don’t. Just be sad. Just let the sadness, stand in the way of it, and let it hit you like a truck.’
And I let it come, and I just started to feel ‘oh my God,’and I pulled over and I just cried like a bitch. I cried so much. And it was beautiful. Sadness is poetic. You’re lucky to live sad moments.
And then I had happy feelings. Because when you let yourself feel sad, your body has antibodies, it has happiness that comes rushing in to meet the sadness. So I was grateful to feel sad, and then I met it with true, profound happiness. It was such a trip.
The thing is, because we don’t want that first bit of sad, we push it away with a little phone or a jack-off or the food. You never feel completely sad or completely happy, you just feel kinda satisfied with your product, and then you die. So that’s why I don’t want to get a phone for my kids.
Recently found (thanks Robin Kelly): a Tumblr blog sharing “the inspiring story of Hafid from Dubai,the douchebag who stole my phone”. Who knows if it’s real, but as the blog says Hafid “forgot to switch off the camera upload function, that’s why we will enjoy a deep insight into his life.”
Blog caption: “salam again, the summer heat doesn’t keep creative hafid from exploring new locations and posing the shit out of them.”
The blog is interesting for a couple of reasons:
It’s not a “deep insight” into Hafid’s life at all, it’s the commentary of a crime victim laying bare the naive and sometimes banal life stream of a supposed thief. And now it’s gone viral. So why do we find this so entertaining?
There’s something simultaneously unnerving and entertaining about having access to a strangers’ life without his consent or knowledge. When was the last time you had full access to someone else’s photostream? It’s voyeurism at its most culturally intimate. It also opens spaces for fantasy, humour, bitterness and total misinterpretation. In many of the images the blog author incorrectly identifies “Hafid” in the picture. Maybe all Arabs look the same to the author? Maybe all Arabs are called Hafid anyway? The author labels a video of Hafid’s friends/brothers/cousins “dancing” when they’re wrestling (maybe that’s a joke). Either way, what we’re doing is looking at Hafid through his own eyes. This is what he sees! We can be him for a day or two! We’re both participating in his life and making fun of him by doing it. But, some things we’ll never know: is he really an aspiring fashion designer? Is he happy? Are those his brothers or lovers? Some things we know for sure though: he’s having chicken for lunch.
Seems like mobile photography techniques suffer less from cultural relativism…Hafid’s photos have all the built-in cliches of mobile culture:
the filtered food shot
the person-in-the-palm-of-my-hand shot.
If it’s real then this kind of surveillance at a distance is mind blowing. Even if the blog is the work of a bored creative (or a researcher, even better) the narrative speaks volumes. There’s the microcosm it provides for western views on the “other.” now I’m making assumptions. Maybe the blog author isn’t western – they never identify themselves. The author uses Arabic in the captions – which are funny, sarcastic and mildly derogatory. This could have been left out, but to be honest the blog is nothing without it. So we’re having a laugh at a person, using his own tongue. Again, it’s entertaining, but why?
Hafid has the obvious naivety of someone using a smartphone for the first time. He poses like a newbie in cliched places (the rocks! the ocean!), filter experimentation gone wrong, under-lit selfies, and shot composition minus heads. This is overlaid with the owner’s derisive Western commentary, someone familiar with smartphone technology. Anyone who has been to Dubai will know the incredible opulence it celebrates. I think Hafid’s mobile stream speaks less about his lack of creative capacity and more about our new global dividing line in consumer culture – defined by the phone you own.
Susan Sontag, On Photography
To photograph is to appropriate the thing photographed. It means putting oneself into a certain relation to the world that feels like knowledge – and therefore, like power.
As photographs give people an imaginary possession of a past that is unreal, they also help people to take possession of space in which they are insecure.
…dependence on the camera, as the device that makes real what one is experiencing….
Travel becomes a strategy for accumulating photographs. Most tourists feel compelled to put the camera between themselves and whatever is remarkable that they encounter. Unsure of other responses, they take a picture. This gives shape to an experience: stop, take a photograph, and move on.
Jose Van Dijck, Mediated Memories in the Digital Age
Whereas their parents invested considerable time and effort in building up material collections of pictures for future reference, youngsters appear to take less interest in sharing photographs as objects than as sharing them as experiences. [p.114]
Digital photography is part of this larger transformation in which the self becomes the center of a virtual universe made up of informational and spatial flows, individuals articulate their identity as social beings not only by taking and storing photographs to document their lives but also by by participating in communal photographic exchanges that mark their identity as interactive producers and consumers of culture.
From the above observations it is tempting to draw the conclusion that digital cameras are moving away from their prime functions as memory tools, instead becoming tools for identity formation, communication, and experience. If photographs were always a medium for remembering scenes and objects from the past, digital cameras particularly encourage users to imagine and invent the present.[p.116]
Sherry Turkle, Alone Together
Gradually we come to see our online life as life itself. We come to see what robots offer as relationship. the simplification of relationship is no longer a source of compliant. It becomes what we want. Technology reshapes the landscape of our emotional lives, but is it offering us the lives we want to lead? [p.17]
Arms held high; cell phone glint in the sun. People are taking pictures of themselves, of strangers, of friends…The event is a celebration of physical presence, but the crowd reaches out to those who are absent. It is important to have images of the day on one’s own phone. And it is important to send them along. A photo from the inauguration, or a text, a posting, an email, a Tweet – all validate the sense of being there. It used to be that taking a photograph marked participation…But these days, the photograph is not enough. Sending implies being….We are pressed into the service of technologies of remembrance and validation. [p.302]
Sarah Kember & Joanna Zylinska, Life After New Media
Our argument is that events are never merely presented and represented in the media, and that any such representations are always to an extent performative. [xvi]
If indeed to live is to be photographed, then contrary to its more typical association with the passage of time and death, photography can be understood more productively in terms of vitality, as a process of differentiation and life-making. [p.72]
..if we are to think about photography in terms of mediation – whereby mediation stands for the differentiation of, as well as the connection between, media and, more broadly, for the acts and processes of producing and temporarily stabilizing the world into media , agents and relations, and networks – we need to see the ontology of photography as predominantly that of becoming.[p.79]
I met Simone Rebaudengo at frog design Munich today. We spoke about social machines and addiction. Specifically we spoke about Brad the toaster, part of a project called Addicted Products that he finished in May in London during some time at Haque Design & Research. Brad wears his emotions on his sleeve. Use him infrequently and he gets upset. Render Brad useless by not making toast and it’s over – he’ll probably send a message to a courier to fetch him. Then you’re on the “black toast list” – which is pretty dire. Brad is not owned, he’s hosted. Brad tweets. If you host Brad you could follow him. – Natalie Dixon