Evolution of the selfie

[William Kahn]

<p>Suspicions confirmed:</p>

<p>http://wpcomics.washingtonpost.com/client/wpc/nq/</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Evolution or devolution?</p>

<p>Whatever, it may be self-assuring, and also easier to share with others than the traditional "look in the mirror" each morning.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>Evolution or devolution?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>LOL. As I tend to be more progressive than reactionary, I'd say evolution. I think the whole idea of the modern-day selfie is wonderful, not because it's great photography in a traditional sense but because it utilizes a new kind of communication, is spontaneously self-expressive, and is just downright fun for those who do it.</p>

[thomas_k.]

<p>I always look for a down side of things: waiting for the first murder with selfie stick as a weapon ;)</p>

[Gup]

<p>I agree with Fred, in part (I'm not very progressive), that it's wonderful in its spontaneity and gives joy to those involved. As I approach geezer-hood (59 today!) I enjoy seeing selfies posted by the younger crowd on my FB page and phone texts. The world has become such a small place in so many ways and many young people have become such seasoned travellers that many of the selfies crossing my desk are really inspiring. I have acquaintances posting shots of themselves with famous places over their shoulders from around the globe on a daily basis. Just this week I have received selfies from a daughter visiting Cairo, my niece and sister-in-law in Paris, my other daughter in Australia, a friend in India, the same friend in Nepal, a cousin in the French Alps, friends cruising off Vancouver and a friend in his garden. I love it!</p><div></div>

[aplumpton]

<p>I think the caracaturist in the link had made up his mind, and displayed that equivocally. My either- or, however, is no more than a question. Selfies are fun and sometimes quite spontaneous, but progressive I am not very sure. One might say everything Apple or Samsung puts out there is progressive, but one would also have to be a confirmed materialist. It probably will be tackled by someone studying modern popular culture, the post me generation, or desirous of a new PhD theme. The jury may be out but selfies may eventually get to be as entertaining as the camera club president who wants you to see all 730 of his slides clicked a foggy morning in Rogers Pass.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>My either- or, however, is no more than a question.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes. That's why I answered it, speaking for myself.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Selfies are fun and sometimes quite spontaneous, but progressive I am not very sure.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I said <em>I</em> was progressive. Of that I am sure.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>One might say everything Apple or <em>Samsung</em> puts out there is progressive.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I suppose one, indeed, might. I wouldn't. (I also wouldn't reduce selfies to the devices and technology that produce them any more than I would reduce any photo to the camera or equipment they were made with.)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>the post me generation</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I never liked this monicker for any generation. "Me" generation always sounded condescending to me.</p>

<p> </p>

[aplumpton]

<blockquote>

<p>"Me" generation always sounded condescending to me.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fred, on that we may agree to a point. "A spade is a spade" as a friend used to say back in the 70s or 80s. If something doesn't suit one's social values is it condescending to point it out? "Me" generation or similar attitude is something that really goes beyond one particular generation, as it is routed in culture and communal values. Individualism of that navel gazing type sometimes produces invention and change of the right type but individualism with social conscience is I believe more powerful in that regard. As for Apple or Samsung technology not being the cause of selfies, maybe not entirely, but how many selfies do you imagine were / are produced using DSLR or film cameras? Selfies has become a market tool.</p>

<p>If my critique is what you may call reactionary and which also includes the questioning of some selfies on a societal/philosophical plane, so be it. Progressiveness that I know rarely shuns questions or purports to have equivocal replies.<br>

<a name="pagebottom"></a></p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>If something doesn't suit one's social values is it condescending to point it out?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No. What I said is condescending is the use of the term "Me Generation."</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Progressiveness that I know rarely shuns questions</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Same here. But there are questions and there are questions. A question like "What is the cultural significance or non-significance of selfies" would seem like a sincere and genuine question. But <em>"</em><em>The jury may be out but selfies may eventually get to be as entertaining as the camera club president who wants you to see all 730 of his slides clicked a foggy morning in Rogers Pass"</em> is not a question. It's a put down.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>As for Apple or Samsung technology not being the cause of selfies</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's not what I said. I said selfies shouldn't be reduced to the technology that is behind them. The technology <em>is</em> part of the cause, sure, though it's a phenomenon that the marketing departments didn't think up. Selfies became a cultural phenomenon and the marketing departments then cashed in on it, which would seem to make perfect sense. Their marketing is much more a result than a cause of the selfie explosion. In any case, I would consider it reactionary by those in eras gone by who considered Polaroids just a navel-gazing or mindless gimmick, something that could be done easily and swiftly without the painstakingness that had previously gone into picture making. And Polaroids, just like selfies, have produced some significant images by those who wanted to and also produced a lot of family snapshots (which are probably among the most important types of photographs produced) that generations can look back on in family albums, not unlike selfies, only they'll more likely be viewed on electronic media rather than in dusty albums. As I see it, today's selfie is my generation's long hair, ripped jeans, and colorful bandanas. It's the self expression of youth and not something, unless it was somehow dangerous or destructive (which it's not) I would ever seek to quash.</p>

<p>Remember the screaming Bobby Soxers. Glorious! Not every cultural phenomenon has to have philosophical depth or social consciousness to be relevant and important.</p>

[aplumpton]

<blockquote>

<p>"What is the cultural significance or non-significance of selfies" would seem like a sincere and genuine question.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>You have paraphrased exactly what is in my mind and the nature of my so-called "reactionary" thoughts. Few seem to be interested in this aspect. I will not continue that exploration here but perhaps at a later moment. In any case it is more cultural than photographic in content.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>But <em>"</em><em>The jury may be out but selfies may eventually get to be as entertaining as the camera club president who wants you to see all 730 of his slides clicked a foggy morning in Rogers Pass"</em> is not a question. It's a put down.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I think there is a significant difference between what you refer to as a "put down" and what is simply meant to be a humorous analogy to a boring slide show, which also raises a question about the cultural significance of selfies (as opposed to the obvious individual pleasure of making a selfie, or selfie + friends). This discussion will be better held 5 or 10 years from now when the selfie is more part of what may be considered the markers of a society (and a technology) than it is now.</p>

<p>I'm not at all convinced that the smartphone or tablet designers (Apple Samsung, many others) were not aware of the various applications of the forward and back cameras on their product designs. Every anticipated use of these functional attributes is a natural part of any design team's considerations. Skype was certainly not alone amongst these consideration (as it was with inbuilt cameras on computer monitors).</p>

<p>It is undeniable that camera and video functions on tablets and smartphones are a great addition to communication and I, like many others, have often used my ipad to record sound and video images of places visited, parties, or curiosities encountered in daily activity. Selfies are a specific use and type of communication that can be considered separately or together with the others.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>condescending is the use of the term "Me Generation."</p>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry, I completely disagree with you about my use as being of condescending nature. I see nothing condescending about the term. It wasn't coined by me and it is true it attempts to characterize a generation and perhaps an observed characteristic of looking more inwards than outwards, but characterisations of generations is not new, whether it be "X generation", immediate post war I generation, or any other, and whether there are labels or not.</p>

<p>Clothing fads may speak to the human situation in different societies, but I believe that they are often just the inevitable change of styles to interest youth or adults. Being part of a fashion group has always had its adherents. Despite pronounced individualism we still like to be part of a whole. Maybe selfies is just fashion as well, or maybe there is more to be learned from them and their use and value (and potential) in human communication. That is what I am interested in, and possibly others are as well?</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>As I said, selfies are a good tool for self expression. If that's not about human communication, I don't know what is. What you call "just fashion" and being "part of a group," the clothing I wore as a college student, I see as self expression. Even many of the most individualistically expressive paintings and photos were often part of a group or a "school." We have many brilliant cubists, all part of what one might call a fashion fad, especially if one wanted to be condescending about the movement who, when we bother to look carefully, all had individualistic expressions to them. So there's no need for me to separate individual expression from so-called group fashion. If I look carefully enough, I am likely to find the individual's voice. (Not always!)</p>

<p>Stereotyping a group, such as an entire generation, with a quick phrase, whether someone else invented the phrase or I did, doesn't suit me, especially if I'm looking to talk seriously about a subject like human communication within that generation. If I'm writing a pop magazine article and want to attract readers, however, a snappy headline like "The Me Generation" will do the trick.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>but characterisations of generations is not new, whether it be "X generation", immediate post war I generation, or any other, and whether there are labels or not.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>These examples are not characterizations of a generation. They are labels that contain no judgment or description of consciousness or social value. "Me Generation" is an entirely different matter. It's more along the lines of calling those who grew up during the depression and then fought through World War II and rebuilt during the post War years the "Greatest Generation," which also makes a judgment. I never loved the characterizationl, but understand it and do honor those from that era who sacrificed much, accomplished much, fought off a great evil, and survived with a kind of optimism and energy to give my own generation so many advantages our parents didn't have as kids and young adults. <br /> <br /> The "Me Generation" was coined condescendingly, originally by Tom Wolfe, to suggest that baby boomers were self-involved narcissists. If you're not using it that way, then you're not in step with how it's generally used, so please pardon my assumption that you were using it in the way I'm used to hearing it. If you say you didn't mean it condescendingly, I accept that, and understand now that you were using it in an unusual way.</p>

[charleswood]

<p>If self-expression is narrowly defined as expression that can't be a mimicked expression [mimicked self-expression a contradiction in terms] then it seemed to me at the time <em>The Pump House Gang</em> was written by Mr. Wolfe that there was a lot of mimicking going on in our generation that tried to pass itself off as self-expression. Expressing one's self became itself something to mimic where self itself seemed to disappear in an infinite regression, self imitating a self imitating a self where it was imitation all the way down. Who am I then? was an appropriate question to ask given those circumstances, and the Me generation was thus also delineated as having an identity crisis (another phrase I remember from that time, along with navel gazers, etc.). Me generation, identity crisis, navel gazers, self-involved: those were monikers given by those who though older were also were rather imitative in their staid adaptations, a case of the older kettles calling the young pots black. That self-expression is a conundrum we all might agree?</p>

[charleswood]

<p><a href="http://wpcomics.washingtonpost.com/client/wpc/nq/2015/06/26/">http://wpcomics.washingtonpost.com/client/wpc/nq/2015/06/26/</a><br>

Links, like everything else, age so there's an updated link to the linked OP cartoon.</p>

<p>My latest pet peeve isn't the selfie, it's the bucket list which has the advantage, when casting aspersions at others, of at least hitting closer to home.</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>A lot of nice points, Charles. Very textured.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Who am I then?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My answer to "Who am I" and the question of self is wrapped up as much in what's "out there" as what's "in here." (I put those two phrases in quotes because I don't think those dichotomies are useful and don't see self and other as dichotomies but rather as overlapping.) I am as much a product of my parents' view and treatment of me, my friends opinions and way of relating to me, my culture and community, my family, my acquaintances and work relationships, the time I live in and the place I live as I am whatever my individuality and own perceptions and tastes are. <br>

<br>

If communication and expression didn't have an element of mimicking, we'd never communicate. We have to adopt certain repetitive signs and symbols in order to understand each other, whether verbal or visual. <br>

<br>

A selfie is not just a self indulgence. Most are meant to be shared. And the gestures and facial expressions to be found in them are not solely born of an individual. They often are, in a sense, like links in a chain.<br>

<br>

Art, IMO, may be more highbrow at times, more serious, and more crafted, but it's also got that link-in-a-chain thing going on, so that one artist speaks to another and one generation of artists influences and responds to another. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>That self-expression is a conundrum we all might agree?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sure, why not? For me, the conundrum lies in the irony that self can't be separated from other. I find it a sweet conundrum and the mimicking aspect of self expression is only a contradiction if we attempt to isolate self from other in a (IMO, falsely) dualistic way.</p>

 

[charleswood]

<p>Fred - "A selfie is not just a self indulgence."</p>

<p>I agree. The ones I see, which are mostly by women around my age, seem to include a "Why not?" in the smile, which complements what their kids are doing. That's my take, Fred, on your mention of links in a chain. It can really be quite celebratory and about connections between people.</p>