"My real-life shagging has not been self-conscious."
September 14, 2014 8:33 AM Subscribe
"It irritates me because it seems such a self-conscious way to live. But, to be fair, it’s almost always completely unselfconsciously done. It’s people like me, carping at the camcordsters, who are overthinking how life should be experienced. We’re the ones who are trying to impose our opinion of how things should be enjoyed. 'Why can’t you just look at a view!?' we fume, but we never ask ourselves: 'Why can’t you just let people enjoy the view in the way they want!?' Exasperated by people staring at their phones instead of the world around them, we end up staring at people staring at their phones, miss the sunset, fireworks display or penguin feeding time, and don’t even walk away with a video to watch later." (SLGuardian)
Yeah, don't people know how awesome it is when you're in a dark, moody venue with hundreds of people brimming with excitement to see the reunion of your favorite band ever and some ass immediately in front of you pulls out a flashlight and proceeds to shine it in your eyes for nearly the entire set and you spend the first quarter of the set trying just to move away from this oblivious guy only to have him do the same and always somehow end up right in front of you. Yeah. I should just be OK with how he prefers to experience the show.
posted by j03 at 8:47 AM on September 14, 2014 [19 favorites]
posted by j03 at 8:47 AM on September 14, 2014 [19 favorites]
"camcordsters"?
Surely no one has used the word "camcorder" since 1998. Oh, I'm teasing, David Mitchell's a hoot and a half.
I do get annoyed at people during concerts raising their iPhones to record the proceedings - because I'm barely 5'1" and everyone else is tall enough that raising their arms guarantees that I'll see nothing. If I try to push ahead of them, I get the hairy eyeball.
Recording your own couplings just seems... like it's getting out of the moment? I do wonder why people want to film themselves at it instead of focusing on what they're doing and on the other person. It seems to me that knowing the camera's on changes the nature of the act, and makes it more of an act, you know?
posted by droplet at 8:50 AM on September 14, 2014 [1 favorite]
Surely no one has used the word "camcorder" since 1998. Oh, I'm teasing, David Mitchell's a hoot and a half.
I do get annoyed at people during concerts raising their iPhones to record the proceedings - because I'm barely 5'1" and everyone else is tall enough that raising their arms guarantees that I'll see nothing. If I try to push ahead of them, I get the hairy eyeball.
Recording your own couplings just seems... like it's getting out of the moment? I do wonder why people want to film themselves at it instead of focusing on what they're doing and on the other person. It seems to me that knowing the camera's on changes the nature of the act, and makes it more of an act, you know?
posted by droplet at 8:50 AM on September 14, 2014 [1 favorite]
There's a good reason to be annoyed at people with their phones, and that is that the phones are unwanted light sources. When somebody picks up their phone to take a picture - particularly at a concert or other low-light situation - they divert the attention of others, whose eyes are drawn in by the illuminated thing, whether they want to see it or not. This is why tourists with traditional cameras (SLR, through-the-viewfinder) were not nearly so annoying as their early-21st century counterparts with all the damn phones and tablets.
A few weeks ago at the Chicago Jazz festival, a man in the row in front of me kept looking at his phone. I tried at first to practice tolerance, but it was really interfering with my enjoyment. I told myself "Maybe he's a doctor, or has other important business". But the display was big enough for me to see that he was checking baseball scores. I politely tapped him on the shoulder (between numbers) and said: "Every time you check the score, you are creating a distraction for the people around you". His response: "I had no idea!"
So I think it's OK - maybe even required - to let people know when they are being obnoxious. They may simply not have a clue.
posted by crazy_yeti at 8:51 AM on September 14, 2014 [12 favorites]
A few weeks ago at the Chicago Jazz festival, a man in the row in front of me kept looking at his phone. I tried at first to practice tolerance, but it was really interfering with my enjoyment. I told myself "Maybe he's a doctor, or has other important business". But the display was big enough for me to see that he was checking baseball scores. I politely tapped him on the shoulder (between numbers) and said: "Every time you check the score, you are creating a distraction for the people around you". His response: "I had no idea!"
So I think it's OK - maybe even required - to let people know when they are being obnoxious. They may simply not have a clue.
posted by crazy_yeti at 8:51 AM on September 14, 2014 [12 favorites]
Oh, also there was the time I was at the British Museum, looking at the Rosetta Stone - the REAL Rosetta Stone - realizing I could make out a few of the Greek words, it was thrilling. Then a chap asked everyone to step aside so he could photograph it - and, amazingly, the group complied. This was not a professional photographer, just a museum-goer with a cheap camera - and the gift shop, not far away, was offering high-quality photographic reproductions of the Rosetta Stone (in postcard form), at a modest price ...
posted by crazy_yeti at 8:54 AM on September 14, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by crazy_yeti at 8:54 AM on September 14, 2014 [2 favorites]
And finally - if you're going to photograph/video yourself having sex, DON'T UPLOAD IT TO THE CLOUD. Wasn't anyone listening when Richard Stallman said, "Every time you hear the phrase 'cloud computing', you should think 'untrustworthy computing'" ?
posted by crazy_yeti at 8:55 AM on September 14, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by crazy_yeti at 8:55 AM on September 14, 2014 [3 favorites]
This phenomena is the intersection between Authenticity Culture and Me Culture.
posted by oceanjesse at 8:59 AM on September 14, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by oceanjesse at 8:59 AM on September 14, 2014 [4 favorites]
There is a wonderful sense of sharing among strangers experiencing beauty or wonder together. I can understand that some people can't or don't want to be part of that, but I always feel a bit sorry for them. There is something much deeper and richer than a camera can capture going on, and they are missing out.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 9:08 AM on September 14, 2014
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 9:08 AM on September 14, 2014
Also, thanks for posting this. David Mitchell remains a comedic treasure
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 9:10 AM on September 14, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 9:10 AM on September 14, 2014 [2 favorites]
step aside so he could photograph it
In about twenty years they'll have marked places where you can stand in front of paintings to take the funniest selfie. There'll be queues and fast track tickets for the famous ones. They'll have boxes of comedy hats and props for you to use.
After all, why shouldn't people enjoy art any way they like? Isn't it good to introduce as many people as possible to great works of art? What are we, snobs?
posted by Segundus at 9:15 AM on September 14, 2014
In about twenty years they'll have marked places where you can stand in front of paintings to take the funniest selfie. There'll be queues and fast track tickets for the famous ones. They'll have boxes of comedy hats and props for you to use.
After all, why shouldn't people enjoy art any way they like? Isn't it good to introduce as many people as possible to great works of art? What are we, snobs?
posted by Segundus at 9:15 AM on September 14, 2014
Most of the people I see taking photos with their phones aren't just taking photos with their phones. They are then tweeting, posting, liking, Facebooking, commenting on photos to their friends. And then checking their messages, checking to see if anyone liked their photos, replying to people who commented immediately. Oh it's been a minute better tweet, check my messages, see if anyone liked my photos, reply to new comments again. It's a bad loop.
posted by 2bucksplus at 9:22 AM on September 14, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by 2bucksplus at 9:22 AM on September 14, 2014 [4 favorites]
And finally - if you're going to photograph/video yourself having sex, DON'T UPLOAD IT TO THE Butt. Wasn't anyone listening when Richard Stallman said, "Every time you hear the phrase 'butt computing', you should think 'untrustworthy computing'" ?
this isn't so much a snarky FTFY as it is me wanting to share the joy of what Cloud to Butt does for me with the rest of you
posted by NoraReed at 9:23 AM on September 14, 2014 [9 favorites]
this isn't so much a snarky FTFY as it is me wanting to share the joy of what Cloud to Butt does for me with the rest of you
posted by NoraReed at 9:23 AM on September 14, 2014 [9 favorites]
I have trouble believing that David Mitchell still hasn't uttered something horrendously bigoted and offensive causing the ruination of his public life. His diamond-hard sincerity coupled with the platonic ideal of middle-class sensibilities he exhibits crushes the world-view of my inner Chav repeatedly.
I can't even hate him for it because he's so fucking nice he probably agrees with me.
posted by fullerine at 9:32 AM on September 14, 2014 [12 favorites]
I can't even hate him for it because he's so fucking nice he probably agrees with me.
posted by fullerine at 9:32 AM on September 14, 2014 [12 favorites]
This is nothing new. Back in the 80's I was in the Kunsthistorische Museum in Vienna. There was this American gentleman with a large VHS camcorder stapled to his shoulder filming every damn painting in the room for about 20 seconds each. He never took his eye off the eyepiece and looked at the art. Film. Step side ways. Film again. This wasn't the only experience at the time like this. I became convinced that for Americans it's not real unless you see it on a TV. Maybe now, things aren't real unless you see them on a Facebook page. This includes selfies. Constant reinforcement that you actually exist.
posted by njohnson23 at 9:40 AM on September 14, 2014 [6 favorites]
posted by njohnson23 at 9:40 AM on September 14, 2014 [6 favorites]
Regarding the Stallman quote about the cloud. You could entertain the brief fantasy that Stallman wants to be a Cassandra, correct but doomed to be reviled for his warnings. But it isn't true. He is one of the only public voices that cares about what would be called basic human decency and fairness in day to day life, but somehow is construed to be bomb throwing anarchism / anti-corporate class war once computers are involved. It's too bad he's also a bit of a kook, but that's beside the point.
posted by idiopath at 9:41 AM on September 14, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by idiopath at 9:41 AM on September 14, 2014 [4 favorites]
I became convinced that for Americans it's not real unless you see it on a TV. Maybe now, things aren't real unless you see them on a Facebook page. This includes selfies. Constant reinforcement that you actually exist.
If you think that this is even remotely an American phenomenon than you have clearly never met a tourist from, say, Germany. Or, god help you, China.
posted by Itaxpica at 9:45 AM on September 14, 2014 [14 favorites]
If you think that this is even remotely an American phenomenon than you have clearly never met a tourist from, say, Germany. Or, god help you, China.
posted by Itaxpica at 9:45 AM on September 14, 2014 [14 favorites]
In about twenty years they'll have marked places where you can stand in front of paintings to take the funniest selfie. There'll be queues and fast track tickets for the famous ones. They'll have boxes of comedy hats and props for you to use.
After all, why shouldn't people enjoy art any way they like? Isn't it good to introduce as many people as possible to great works of art? What are we, snobs?
Oh God, you're right. This makes me want to curl up into the tiniest of little balls.
posted by Omission at 9:49 AM on September 14, 2014 [1 favorite]
After all, why shouldn't people enjoy art any way they like? Isn't it good to introduce as many people as possible to great works of art? What are we, snobs?
Oh God, you're right. This makes me want to curl up into the tiniest of little balls.
posted by Omission at 9:49 AM on September 14, 2014 [1 favorite]
crazy_yeti: Talking about the cloud is at best a distraction and too often an excuse for victim blaming by people who overestimate their understanding of security. Improvements will require a lot of rethinking but Stallman hasn't spent much (any?) time or intellectual capital on it rather than silly ideological diversions.
posted by adamsc at 9:53 AM on September 14, 2014 [5 favorites]
posted by adamsc at 9:53 AM on September 14, 2014 [5 favorites]
he's so fucking nice
For me, the he's-so-nice in his writing often shades just a little too far into he's-insufferably-smug.
posted by We had a deal, Kyle at 10:02 AM on September 14, 2014 [1 favorite]
For me, the he's-so-nice in his writing often shades just a little too far into he's-insufferably-smug.
posted by We had a deal, Kyle at 10:02 AM on September 14, 2014 [1 favorite]
After all, why shouldn't people enjoy art (or a view or anything) any way they like?
This is a bit off track from the linked article (as least as I read it), but I'll bite:
Because the enjoyment of art or a view or a concert is to a large extent a social experience. It's not some direct, unmediated link between your eyes and ears and brain and the performer or paint or vista. When I go to a concert I object to people who spend the whole time filming for the same reason I go to a concert instead of watching a video of the event: because other people and their actions and reactions actively contribute to (or degrade) my experience.
And because there is a difference between taking a picture of a great view and experiencing the view.
And maybe it's more snobbish to say "at least those plebes are wearing Che Guevara shirts even though they don't vote" than it is to say they should care about art (or whatever) in the way we ourselves think it is important to care about art.
It's important to respect other people's different experiences of the world and different preferences, sure. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't care about how other people perceive and prefer the world. Maybe they're completely missing the point.
posted by ropeladder at 10:16 AM on September 14, 2014 [18 favorites]
This is a bit off track from the linked article (as least as I read it), but I'll bite:
Because the enjoyment of art or a view or a concert is to a large extent a social experience. It's not some direct, unmediated link between your eyes and ears and brain and the performer or paint or vista. When I go to a concert I object to people who spend the whole time filming for the same reason I go to a concert instead of watching a video of the event: because other people and their actions and reactions actively contribute to (or degrade) my experience.
And because there is a difference between taking a picture of a great view and experiencing the view.
And maybe it's more snobbish to say "at least those plebes are wearing Che Guevara shirts even though they don't vote" than it is to say they should care about art (or whatever) in the way we ourselves think it is important to care about art.
It's important to respect other people's different experiences of the world and different preferences, sure. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't care about how other people perceive and prefer the world. Maybe they're completely missing the point.
posted by ropeladder at 10:16 AM on September 14, 2014 [18 favorites]
Flagged as fantastic, ropeladder.
posted by joseph conrad is fully awesome at 10:18 AM on September 14, 2014
posted by joseph conrad is fully awesome at 10:18 AM on September 14, 2014
Because the enjoyment of art or a view or a concert is to a large extent a social experience.
But it's also true that the kids who I often see recording songs at concerts then go on to make Vines and Tweets and gifs and SnapChats and YouTube channels out of the stuff, on which their friends comment and share. They don't actually go home and look at the footage alone - it's all socially gathered and distributed.
So the social experience is actually more intense in some ways than the immediate sharing of the moment with a few thousand strangers.
posted by colie at 10:28 AM on September 14, 2014 [6 favorites]
But it's also true that the kids who I often see recording songs at concerts then go on to make Vines and Tweets and gifs and SnapChats and YouTube channels out of the stuff, on which their friends comment and share. They don't actually go home and look at the footage alone - it's all socially gathered and distributed.
So the social experience is actually more intense in some ways than the immediate sharing of the moment with a few thousand strangers.
posted by colie at 10:28 AM on September 14, 2014 [6 favorites]
Most of the people I see taking photos with their phones aren't just taking photos with their phones. They are then tweeting, posting, liking, Facebooking, commenting on photos to their friends. And then checking their messages, checking to see if anyone liked their photos, replying to people who commented immediately. Oh it's been a minute better tweet, check my messages, see if anyone liked my photos, reply to new comments again. It's a bad loop.No, it's wonderful. I went on a balloon trip yesterday with my mum and live tweeted the experience and having people respond to and enjoy it with me was brilliant.
posted by MartinWisse at 10:36 AM on September 14, 2014 [9 favorites]
Most of the time, sharing something is half the enjoyment of experiencing it. Pre-cellphones, I had some beautiful solo hikes in the Montana mountains, and I think sharing them would have enhanced the experience.
As far as sex tapes, performing can be part of the experience, even if it's only for you and your partner's later consumption.
posted by desjardins at 10:41 AM on September 14, 2014 [1 favorite]
As far as sex tapes, performing can be part of the experience, even if it's only for you and your partner's later consumption.
posted by desjardins at 10:41 AM on September 14, 2014 [1 favorite]
There's a good reason to be annoyed at people with their phones, and that is that the phones are unwanted light sources. When somebody picks up their phone to take a picture - particularly at a concert or other low-light situation - they divert the attention of others, whose eyes are drawn in by the illuminated thing, whether they want to see it or not. This is why tourists with traditional cameras (SLR, through-the-viewfinder) were not nearly so annoying as their early-21st century counterparts with all the damn phones and tablets.
And yet, in my experience of going to shows and (gasp!) taking photos of them, venues have been increasingly cracking down on photography. But not the retina-searing cameraphone snaps that look like shit; they've been cracking down on people with real cameras that have viewfinders and screens that can be completely turned off so as not to distract others.
This came to a hilarious head when I went to see Cults last year with as small a camera as I could build, only to be told that I couldn't bring it in or store it at the coat check (because none existed) so I'd have to go all the way back home to stow it. Eventually I convinced the (otherwise perfectly nice) security dude to take my battery instead. Once I get in and the show starts, what do I see? A sea of phone screens. And you're telling me I'm the one who's in the wrong.
(I am aware that I have no specific right to photograph anything in a concert venue unless I'm press.)
(Also, I'm actually pretty sure at this point that "oh my god all these phones at the concert I'm trying to enjoy" is an old-person complaint, even though it occasionally comes from young people as well. For better or for worse, I think most young people have internalized the sea-of-phones phenomenon as just part of the landscape when you go to a show.)
posted by chrominance at 10:46 AM on September 14, 2014 [2 favorites]
And yet, in my experience of going to shows and (gasp!) taking photos of them, venues have been increasingly cracking down on photography. But not the retina-searing cameraphone snaps that look like shit; they've been cracking down on people with real cameras that have viewfinders and screens that can be completely turned off so as not to distract others.
This came to a hilarious head when I went to see Cults last year with as small a camera as I could build, only to be told that I couldn't bring it in or store it at the coat check (because none existed) so I'd have to go all the way back home to stow it. Eventually I convinced the (otherwise perfectly nice) security dude to take my battery instead. Once I get in and the show starts, what do I see? A sea of phone screens. And you're telling me I'm the one who's in the wrong.
(I am aware that I have no specific right to photograph anything in a concert venue unless I'm press.)
(Also, I'm actually pretty sure at this point that "oh my god all these phones at the concert I'm trying to enjoy" is an old-person complaint, even though it occasionally comes from young people as well. For better or for worse, I think most young people have internalized the sea-of-phones phenomenon as just part of the landscape when you go to a show.)
posted by chrominance at 10:46 AM on September 14, 2014 [2 favorites]
ropeladder: " When I go to a concert I object to people who spend the whole time filming for the same reason I go to a concert instead of watching a video of the event: because other people and their actions and reactions actively contribute to (or degrade) my experience."
That still feels like worrying about "other people doing it wrong" to me. Excluding folks that are actually blocking the view, my subjective experience is that I couldn't care less how other people are engaging the event/object/view. I understand that some folks are more sensitive to these types of distraction, and I'm thankful I'm not one of them.
posted by calamari kid at 10:46 AM on September 14, 2014 [1 favorite]
That still feels like worrying about "other people doing it wrong" to me. Excluding folks that are actually blocking the view, my subjective experience is that I couldn't care less how other people are engaging the event/object/view. I understand that some folks are more sensitive to these types of distraction, and I'm thankful I'm not one of them.
posted by calamari kid at 10:46 AM on September 14, 2014 [1 favorite]
It 's mainly the assholes who walk and text in busy places who upset me. Because I have to hurt them with my shoulder in order to teach them a lesson, and I actually don't enjoy hurting people. Well, okay, maybe a little bit.
posted by Decani at 11:24 AM on September 14, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by Decani at 11:24 AM on September 14, 2014 [2 favorites]
Objecting because cellphone screens are annoying and distracting is fair, although at least at the last few big concerts I went to it was far from the most annoying/objectionable behavior on display. (And just as a reminder, back in the "good old days" before cellphones, people use to chainsmoke goddamn cigarettes at concerts. Cellphones ain't got nothing on some drunk asshole burning you with his lit cig in the obnoxiousness department.)
Complaining about people taking pictures at outdoor venues, of landmarks, in restaurants, or in other situations where there's no direct effect on anyone else just seems like the worst kind of peevish, micro-scale social conservatism, which looks suspiciously like a fear that "somebody else might be having more fun than me". (And if you're busy looking down your nose at someone who's taking pictures, it's probably true.)
There are a lot of people for whom going to a concert, or climbing to the top of a mountain, or whatever, isn't as much about—or is only in part about—actually going go the concert, or standing on top of the mountain, but is also about the longer-lasting experience of communicating about that with other people by taking photos and talking to people about it, and in general having done it rather than doing it. And that's legitimate. You may not like it and/or find it depressing and hollow, but that's pretty obviously subjective.
Except in the context of sex with another person, where it seems likely to lead to some weird and troublesome objectification issues (although if that's what both people are into, go nuts, I guess), it seems a bit rich to judge other people based on what they enjoy in a particular experience. You may go to the Grand Canyon to experience it on some communing-with-nature, metaphysical level, other people are just there to get a goddamn photo and get out of the hot sun.
posted by Kadin2048 at 11:32 AM on September 14, 2014 [4 favorites]
Complaining about people taking pictures at outdoor venues, of landmarks, in restaurants, or in other situations where there's no direct effect on anyone else just seems like the worst kind of peevish, micro-scale social conservatism, which looks suspiciously like a fear that "somebody else might be having more fun than me". (And if you're busy looking down your nose at someone who's taking pictures, it's probably true.)
There are a lot of people for whom going to a concert, or climbing to the top of a mountain, or whatever, isn't as much about—or is only in part about—actually going go the concert, or standing on top of the mountain, but is also about the longer-lasting experience of communicating about that with other people by taking photos and talking to people about it, and in general having done it rather than doing it. And that's legitimate. You may not like it and/or find it depressing and hollow, but that's pretty obviously subjective.
Except in the context of sex with another person, where it seems likely to lead to some weird and troublesome objectification issues (although if that's what both people are into, go nuts, I guess), it seems a bit rich to judge other people based on what they enjoy in a particular experience. You may go to the Grand Canyon to experience it on some communing-with-nature, metaphysical level, other people are just there to get a goddamn photo and get out of the hot sun.
posted by Kadin2048 at 11:32 AM on September 14, 2014 [4 favorites]
* quietly judging all of you *
posted by sandettie light vessel automatic at 1:35 PM on September 14, 2014
posted by sandettie light vessel automatic at 1:35 PM on September 14, 2014
Just wait until it is people's watches!
Heads will explode.
posted by srboisvert at 3:06 PM on September 14, 2014 [2 favorites]
Heads will explode.
posted by srboisvert at 3:06 PM on September 14, 2014 [2 favorites]
It 's mainly the assholes who walk and text in busy places who upset me.
People who walk and text end up with this slow, wide gait and you're really confused about what's going on when you're behind them until you figure out it's walkandtext. And people insist they can walk and text functionally, but they cannot. They cannot!
posted by sweetkid at 3:37 PM on September 14, 2014 [4 favorites]
Complaining about people taking pictures at outdoor venues, of landmarks, in restaurants, or in other situations where there's no direct effect on anyone else just seems like the worst kind of peevish, micro-scale social conservatism, which looks suspiciously like a fear that "somebody else might be having more fun than me".
I've always thought--well, okay, one side of my family is very Yankee and there's a definite Puritan sensibility even though I know they're really good people. But it's like, in the bad old days, everybody decided that the easiest way to deal with the fact that life was kind of generally crap was to make sure that life was equally crap for everyone. I still have trouble with this, if not about this particular issue--as someone who pretty much changes into comfy pants the moment I walk in the door, I get instantly judgmental at people wearing such pants outside in the world around strangers.
But I don't say anything, because I know that's just a relic of my grandmother living in my head, and I know that even my grandmother in her lifetime came around to the idea that we were allowed to have more than a sliver of pie for dessert because why not.
To get back on topic: It's all about virtue, look at how we look at it when we get to sexual content, suddenly the character flaw is in trusting the computer, instead of in the people who will take advantage. The virtuous citizen does not admit publicly to having sex for pleasure and should be ashamed at the very thought that someone might know they had once been naked. I don't think David's really the guilty party here, because if there's one thing I know, it's that his self-doubt and mine would have a great time swapping stories over coffee. But I'm hitting the point where I start to think, if I feel ashamed, that isn't the natural order of things. As the number of people who actually do such things attests, it is perfectly normal to swap sexy pictures. If we all feel compelled to disguise our identity, use high-security chat services, whatever, just to prevent someone finding out that we once sent someone a sexy picture, then we need to start asking who these people are who have such a problem with it and why we care about their opinions.
We've mostly moved past the idea that it's terribly shameful to live with someone without being married to them, even though that means basically everybody you know knows you're having sex. I hope soon we can do the same with this. I wouldn't love having strangers looking at my youthful adventures with owning a webcam, but in the grand scheme of things, I've really done worse. That doesn't mean that misusing such pictures is okay, mind, but the internet is a fixture in our lives. Every bit of our lives is going to be all over it, and security isn't going to be perfect, but I'm sitting here in no pants with the blinds open because the chance of someone looking in isn't actually worth the effort of closing the blinds, so I'm pretty okay with that.
posted by Sequence at 3:43 PM on September 14, 2014 [3 favorites]
I've always thought--well, okay, one side of my family is very Yankee and there's a definite Puritan sensibility even though I know they're really good people. But it's like, in the bad old days, everybody decided that the easiest way to deal with the fact that life was kind of generally crap was to make sure that life was equally crap for everyone. I still have trouble with this, if not about this particular issue--as someone who pretty much changes into comfy pants the moment I walk in the door, I get instantly judgmental at people wearing such pants outside in the world around strangers.
But I don't say anything, because I know that's just a relic of my grandmother living in my head, and I know that even my grandmother in her lifetime came around to the idea that we were allowed to have more than a sliver of pie for dessert because why not.
To get back on topic: It's all about virtue, look at how we look at it when we get to sexual content, suddenly the character flaw is in trusting the computer, instead of in the people who will take advantage. The virtuous citizen does not admit publicly to having sex for pleasure and should be ashamed at the very thought that someone might know they had once been naked. I don't think David's really the guilty party here, because if there's one thing I know, it's that his self-doubt and mine would have a great time swapping stories over coffee. But I'm hitting the point where I start to think, if I feel ashamed, that isn't the natural order of things. As the number of people who actually do such things attests, it is perfectly normal to swap sexy pictures. If we all feel compelled to disguise our identity, use high-security chat services, whatever, just to prevent someone finding out that we once sent someone a sexy picture, then we need to start asking who these people are who have such a problem with it and why we care about their opinions.
We've mostly moved past the idea that it's terribly shameful to live with someone without being married to them, even though that means basically everybody you know knows you're having sex. I hope soon we can do the same with this. I wouldn't love having strangers looking at my youthful adventures with owning a webcam, but in the grand scheme of things, I've really done worse. That doesn't mean that misusing such pictures is okay, mind, but the internet is a fixture in our lives. Every bit of our lives is going to be all over it, and security isn't going to be perfect, but I'm sitting here in no pants with the blinds open because the chance of someone looking in isn't actually worth the effort of closing the blinds, so I'm pretty okay with that.
posted by Sequence at 3:43 PM on September 14, 2014 [3 favorites]
This phenomena is the intersection between Authenticity Culture and Me Culture.
Not really responding directly to you, but more to this concept.
Pretty much, i'm really annoyed with the(semi successful) campaign to represent this as a "both sides suck" or "both sides have a point" thing.
And, to preface this with that i only take issue in the dark space/show thing, there's been this push to represent the people who take issue with it as old(or if young, trying to perform what they see as matureness)/out of touch/elitist/etc. When the fact is, it's as visually distracting as talking on the phone in a movie theater is auditorily.
You can go even deeper into this inception too. I've argued about this with people who think that objecting to the lit up screen is some kind of dogwhistle and that you really truly just object to people not experiencing something the way you think they should be, and that it's still an authenticity thing.
Shows are dark for a reason, and a lot of shows i've gone too recently had really cool bespoke or even DIY light rigs and stage effects that made me go "woah". They're far more impressive when your in a dark room only lit by that, and it basically takes over your entire field of vision... and you're not looking forward to it through a sea of lit up screens.
I find myself really enjoying clubs/venues/etc where they have a strict no AV recording rule and will actually muscle into the crowd and tell them to knock it off/kick people out/take their phone and bury it at the security desk/whatever.
This really needs to be reframed as a legitimate "people talking/texting in the theater" thing, and not as some kind of elitist dig on them "not experiencing it in an authentic way". Why is it so easy to grok for the theater thing, but becomes an elitist penishead thing at a show? I just don't get it. It always comes off as people desperately wanting to justify their shitty inconsiderate behavior.
I'll also add, to qualify, that this is the only situation in which i actually take issue with this. I've defended it, and poked fun at the codgery haters. I've been that picture taking person someone scoffed at when it's some outdoors/daylight thing and i wasn't effecting them at all. But the association between that and this really bugs me.
posted by emptythought at 4:27 PM on September 14, 2014 [3 favorites]
Not really responding directly to you, but more to this concept.
Pretty much, i'm really annoyed with the(semi successful) campaign to represent this as a "both sides suck" or "both sides have a point" thing.
And, to preface this with that i only take issue in the dark space/show thing, there's been this push to represent the people who take issue with it as old(or if young, trying to perform what they see as matureness)/out of touch/elitist/etc. When the fact is, it's as visually distracting as talking on the phone in a movie theater is auditorily.
You can go even deeper into this inception too. I've argued about this with people who think that objecting to the lit up screen is some kind of dogwhistle and that you really truly just object to people not experiencing something the way you think they should be, and that it's still an authenticity thing.
Shows are dark for a reason, and a lot of shows i've gone too recently had really cool bespoke or even DIY light rigs and stage effects that made me go "woah". They're far more impressive when your in a dark room only lit by that, and it basically takes over your entire field of vision... and you're not looking forward to it through a sea of lit up screens.
I find myself really enjoying clubs/venues/etc where they have a strict no AV recording rule and will actually muscle into the crowd and tell them to knock it off/kick people out/take their phone and bury it at the security desk/whatever.
This really needs to be reframed as a legitimate "people talking/texting in the theater" thing, and not as some kind of elitist dig on them "not experiencing it in an authentic way". Why is it so easy to grok for the theater thing, but becomes an elitist penishead thing at a show? I just don't get it. It always comes off as people desperately wanting to justify their shitty inconsiderate behavior.
I'll also add, to qualify, that this is the only situation in which i actually take issue with this. I've defended it, and poked fun at the codgery haters. I've been that picture taking person someone scoffed at when it's some outdoors/daylight thing and i wasn't effecting them at all. But the association between that and this really bugs me.
posted by emptythought at 4:27 PM on September 14, 2014 [3 favorites]
Emptythought, I totally see how you interpreted my words that way, but I when I used the words authenticity culture, I was thinking about how sometimes people don't feel like what they are doing is authentic unless they have some sort of proof of it on an electronic device that they can show off to others.
posted by oceanjesse at 5:03 PM on September 14, 2014
posted by oceanjesse at 5:03 PM on September 14, 2014
A pre-written note for just such an occasion:
"I won't complain about you interfering with my view IF you'll forward me a copy of your recording: oneswellfoop@myemailaddress Thank you, and if not, frak you."
posted by oneswellfoop at 5:09 PM on September 14, 2014
"I won't complain about you interfering with my view IF you'll forward me a copy of your recording: oneswellfoop@myemailaddress Thank you, and if not, frak you."
posted by oneswellfoop at 5:09 PM on September 14, 2014
You know what's even worse than taking pictures of the art in a museum? Sitting and taking notes about them, and sketching them, the way I do. I realize I should really just experience the moment unmediated, shouldn't I?
posted by Peach at 5:23 PM on September 14, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by Peach at 5:23 PM on September 14, 2014 [4 favorites]
Segundus: In about twenty years they'll have marked places where you can stand in front of paintings to take the funniest selfie.
I was in Disney World last month, and there's a special area for the "Frozen" movie where they have set up special backdrops on the walls. If you have downloaded this app from HP, Aurasma, and activate it just so by standing in a special spot and aiming your camera at this special part of the backdrop, it will combine your actual picture with that backdrop and some other graphical elements before you take the photo.
(It was so awkward to use that a guy from the company had to be there and basically show everyone how to use it, and the images are still kind of lame, but…The Future, I guess?)
posted by wenestvedt at 7:09 AM on September 15, 2014
I was in Disney World last month, and there's a special area for the "Frozen" movie where they have set up special backdrops on the walls. If you have downloaded this app from HP, Aurasma, and activate it just so by standing in a special spot and aiming your camera at this special part of the backdrop, it will combine your actual picture with that backdrop and some other graphical elements before you take the photo.
(It was so awkward to use that a guy from the company had to be there and basically show everyone how to use it, and the images are still kind of lame, but…The Future, I guess?)
posted by wenestvedt at 7:09 AM on September 15, 2014
in restaurants, or in other situations where there's no direct effect on anyone else just seems like the worst kind of peevish, micro-scale social conservatism
But pictures in restaurants do effect other people. Flashes don't magically become less bright inside a restaurant, and it does kind of suck to be trying to have a meal with someone and having bright bursts of light repeatedly flash in your eyes. Sure it's possible to take pictures without flash, but a lot of people don't seem to understand this, and it's pretty shitty that those people have decided that it's okay to bother everyone else. But apparently that's cool now.
Why is it so easy to grok for the theater thing, but becomes an elitist penishead thing at a show? I just don't get it. It always comes off as people desperately wanting to justify their shitty inconsiderate behavior.
Bingo. It's astonishing to see the defense of this incredibly selfish practice here.
posted by Sangermaine at 11:47 AM on September 15, 2014 [2 favorites]
But pictures in restaurants do effect other people. Flashes don't magically become less bright inside a restaurant, and it does kind of suck to be trying to have a meal with someone and having bright bursts of light repeatedly flash in your eyes. Sure it's possible to take pictures without flash, but a lot of people don't seem to understand this, and it's pretty shitty that those people have decided that it's okay to bother everyone else. But apparently that's cool now.
Why is it so easy to grok for the theater thing, but becomes an elitist penishead thing at a show? I just don't get it. It always comes off as people desperately wanting to justify their shitty inconsiderate behavior.
Bingo. It's astonishing to see the defense of this incredibly selfish practice here.
posted by Sangermaine at 11:47 AM on September 15, 2014 [2 favorites]
« Older "Cursed since birth, blessed till death." | Nazis had more legal right to the Ark than Indy:... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by eugenen at 8:41 AM on September 14, 2014 [9 favorites]