It was interesting how Jill Walker Rettberg’s book laid out a sort of genealogy or family tree of today’s “selfie” phenomenon. One thing in particular that struck me was the “picture-a-day” video phenomenon that launched around the time that YouTube became popular. If this was a point on the family tree of the selfie, then I think it is safe to say that this picture-a-day trend was a point where the tree branched off in separate directions to eventually develop into different things. One branch continued to develop the idea of a public sharing of digital self-portraits, while the other branch developed the picture-a-day concept. Soon many people were starting these types of projects, and like Rettberg said, even apps were developed to help anyone achieve their desired product. Soon, the picture-a-day moved to “second-a-day” video compilations, showing snapshots of action in a person’s daily life over the span of time.

Then, last year in 2014, an organization in England called Save the Children U.K. launched a campaign called If London Were Syria to raise awareness for children living under war conditions. A part of this campaign was the viral video Most Shocking Second a Day Video, which portrays a second a day in a young girl’s life under the circumstances of a hypothetical civil war that unfolds in London. The events portrayed in the video are said to be based on factual accounts of children in Syria. This campaign capitalized on the past viral successes of videos in the photo/second a day format, and developed a way to format it to the equally popular trend of raising social awareness through online and social media platforms. This combination worked: the video reached 23 million views on YouTube in just one week.

It is interesting to discover the different evolutions of online trends and digital technologies through this class. Having grown up during this Internet boom, I probably would have never made the connection that these digital developments branch off of each other, often going farther back than before the creation of the Internet itself.

In the first chapter of “Seeing Ourselves Through Technology,” Jill Walker Rettberg discusses the creation of self-representations online: blogs, activity trackers, and perhaps the most literal interpretation, the selfie.

Rettberg spends most of the chapter chronicling the history of self-representation, beginning with the first diary and leading up to habit tracking, to explain more modern and widespread phenomenon. But the first chapter also contains a brief discussion of the disciplining of self-representations that is an interesting look into how we mediate the act of creating online content.

Rettberg mentions depictions of selfie-taking in pop culture being especially disdainful, with much of that hatred directed toward “the stereotypical selfie-takers: young women.” Because teenage girls are often derided for being superficial or vapid, selfie-taking becomes a gendered activity, and one deserving of the kind of scorn directed towards other stereotypically feminine interests (like makeup and boy bands). Rettberg hypothesizes that the negative reaction to young women online is part of a larger attitude regarding “who has the right to speak in public or to share images in public,” which is why established figures are allowed/expected to create content while the average teenage girl is mocked—often by adults—for doing so.

There are not exactly official rules for navigating the world of selfies and status updates, but one can find a lot of potentially well-meaning articles that try to propose commandments for online self-representation. Many rules, like the 5 “Rules for Taking #Selfies on Instagram” seem arbitrary, reflecting our expectations about activity online rather than genuine safety and privacy concerns. For example, the first rule is a hypothetical age restriction, and another is a simple “don’t look stupid.” It’s interesting that social media, a relatively new phenomenon with few (if any) established “authorities” is so conducive to the creation of “new ways to regulate who will be heard and who will be taken seriously.”

The second chapter of the reading , entitled “Filtered Reality”, focused on how filters are commonly offered for almost all pictures these days. Although these filters first became popular on Instagram, they are now readily offered to enhance our pictures on iPhones, iPhoto, Flickr, Snapchat, and almost all picture-taking applications. The article suggest that the popularity of these filters, especially in terms of selfless, is due to wanting to take control of our own image. By taking a selfie and then being able to filter it, a person can represent their image without having to rely on someone else.
In the reading they use the terms style and substance to represent this balance. The substance is the actual photograph and the style is the filter on the photo. I have no problem with filters and often use them on my own photos, but I have recently found myself wondering how much is too much? When there is more emphasis on style, than substance, I wonder if we lose the genuineness of the photograph.
There is an iPhone app called Facetune that many people use, and I wonder if it takes the idea of filters a little too far. On Facetune, not only can people put flattering filters on their pictures, but they can also airbrush their skin, whiten their teeth, and even distort the picture to make themselves look skinnier. On this app people can make themselves look like completely different people. Although I understand the idea of wanting to add style and make yourself look better in a picture, at a certain point the substance doesn’t even matter if it has been editted so much that it is unrecognizable. At that point I believe the photo becomes almost dishonest, unless the person were to explain that the photo was edited. Balancing style and substance is an important element of using digital media correctly without abusing its potential.

How To Be Cool On Instagram According To A Teen

In Jill Walker Rettberg’s Seeing Ourselves Through Technology, we are presented with a dilemma. The dilemma begins by Rettberg arguing that selfies are a form of self-reflection and self-creation (12). While I do agree with the statement and the ideas behind her argument, the application of filters to selfies is a trend that teens now see as faux pas.

I had always used filters on Instagram because I always assumed it was expected. Not only that, but to my understanding, filters are what made Instagram what it is today. The app itself started as a means of simple photo editing on ones phone and has now become a social media cornucopia in of itself. Filters are what set the app apart from beginning, even amongst all of the competition and imitators, Instagram always had the best filters. However, everything has changed, and after reading the above-posted article on Buzzfeed, I knew I had to do some further investigation.

In the article we learn that according to teens (the core subject of our class), there are rules for using Instagram.

• Timing is EVERYTHING.
• Also, don’t post too much.
• BUT if it is a big week in your life, feel free to post more than usual.
• Selfies have STRICT rules.
  • Be “spontaneous and fun.”
  • “Not all the time” aka DO THEM SPARINGLY. “If you think you look good in a selfie fine Instagram it but wait a while before you do it again.”
  • Selfies are “not to be taken seriously.”
  • “Selfies should only be when you have a GOOD one.”
• Filters are for Brita pitchers, not Instagram.

I must point out that this is only the beginning of the list of Instagram rules. Of these rules, what stood out to me the most and had me reflecting on the reading was the fact that teenagers were adamantly against using filters. This was so hard for me to believe that I messaged my boyfriends niece (an 18 year old UCLA freshman) seeking the truth. Upon mentioning the list of Instagram rules to her she knew exactly what I was talking about. She mentioned that using filters is uncool and that any young person knows better. My mind is still recovering from this to be honest with you guys. What is shocking to me the most is that Instagram came out in 2010 and back then I was still a teenager at nineteen.

While I will continue to use filters on my Instagram, it was very interesting having read the Buzzfeed post after having read Rettberg’s work. As someone who posts mostly scenic photos on Instagram (filters included), I will stick to Rettberg’s idea that people subconsciously apply filters that they believe will meet the cultural expectations and norms. That being said, it was my expectation before having read any of this that Instagram was a means of creative expression, not of self reflexion, or even self idolization for that matter.

– Felipe Carbonell

There were so many things that resonated with me in Jill Walker Rettberg’s Seeing Ourselves Through Technology. Her main point that she states at the beginning argues that the three modes of digital media – visual, written, and quantitative- are inextricable. I kept thinking back to our discussion of technology determinism and the social construction of technology through this reading. I feel that Rettberg would sit in the social construction camp…I decided this when I read “…technology is a means to see part of ourselves. Whether we use a wearable, networked step=counter or a convex mirror and oil paints, technology can reflect back to us a version of who we are” (2). Rettberg determines that through our constant engagement with technology – whether it be oil paint in Parmigianino’s case, or a FitBit in a 21^st century person’s case, technology reflects our need to represent ourselves. Though Rettberg does not quite get down to the core of this human desire, I think that it exists no matter the state of technology.

I was pretty fascinated by what Rettberg theorized about selfies. Upon reading the first chapter which compared Parmigianino’s self-portrait paintings to selfies I was like “Oh, brother…” but then Rettberg discusses “selfie hate” by the media. I immediately knew the type of media coverage she was bringing up – images of news reporters arguing the validity of selfies popped into my head. I roll my eyes at those types of news stories (there’s more/better things to cover besides selfies) but at the same time, I can’t say I don’t roll my eyes when I see someone post a selfie. Rettberg posits selfies as “self-representation” which “involves the creation of texts which will be read and interpreted…just as importantly, creating and sharing a selfie or a steam of selifes is a form of self-reflection and self-creation” (12). I guess I never though beyond the obnoxious factor of selfies, but this makes a lot of sense to me. I often hear people talking about how to “brand” yourself on social media and I think the creation of self through selfies has a lot to do with this.

An extremely magnified example of this phenomenon that Rettberg discusses is Kim Kardashian’s “selfie book” entitled “Selfish”. Kanye obviously inspired the idea, and this example has a lot to do with the cult of fame, etc. but it does speak to self-creation in a very heightened, ridiculous sense. Kim Kardashian certainly has a brand that she built – I sometimes hear people refer to the “Kardashian look”. Admittedly, I follow her on Instagram and observe her selfies. She certainly creates this image of herself, “filtering” and “curating” along the way. This selfie self-representation goes so far in this case as to solidify into a published book. This just proves how prevalent selfies are in the creation of self-brand today.

Reitman says that selfies are so prominent online because “we analyse the other writer primarily as a text rather than as a living, breathing human being.” That comment came across a little strange to me. It seems Reitman is arguing against accepting content without thinking of the author. But when we read books, do we constantly think about the author? Does each page contain a picture of the writer’s face, lest we forget who brought the story into existence? Unless it’s an autobiography, isn’t it better for the story to speak independantly of the person who wrote it? Maybe a selfie is a way to prove corporeal existence in the digital world, but other than on FaceBook and dating apps, why is there this obsession with “yes, I’m real.” Words and thoughts are much more important than the person who generated them.

There was a conversation in this week’s episode of Girls, where Chandra expresses disdain of  “cross pollination”, where blogs are turned into books are turned into TV shows. This is metaphysical in the context of the show, which is a semi-autobiography of director/ star Lena Dunham’s life. Dunham recently released a real autobiography of her life after the success of her TV show. Dunham has also directed a movie, Tiny Furniture, which was yet another semi-autobiography with minor changes. All of her productions and publications feature the same core cast. Dunham stars as versions of herself, ditto her friends, but with slightly different tweaks each time, as if she is moving infront of fun house mirror after fun house mirror. Here is a case where a woman has proved her existence, creating and starring in projects, but the observer still doesn’t know who she is.

Indescrepencies between versions of people exist on social media as well. I would argue that people are probably closest to themselves on Tumblr, because it is a platform that users don’t normally share with their IRL friends. It is also a platform where SELFIES ARE COMPLETELY OPTIONAL. Of course, it’s fun when bloggers have tagged/me pages, but it’s not like FaceBook or Instagram, where a meme-filled page generates that icky feeling that you’re being trolled. On Tumblr, you’re actually free to post whatever you want, and that is because no one will nessacerily see your face or your name. Forgoing selfies generates freedom.