The Selfie as a cultural phenomenon has been explained as a mix of narcissism and self-objectification, but of course the next step is photos showing the setting of a selfie.
Called a mise en abyme in art otherwise known as the Droste Effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droste_effect) No longer a personal gratification it became a style, a format, a cliche expression like the old family photos shot by an official photographer became popular in the early days of photography.
(see f.i. http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m4reweptn41qe3yq8o1_500.jpg)
First you got the static family portrait but within a decade photos and painting of posing families before a serious photographer became images in itself which conveyed 'we are wealthy enough to pose' and we would like you to notice….
This is an interesting read on the subject of the new selfie and the importance of that 'third person look':
Before the rise of social media, in the mid-aughts, the self-taken photograph was a largely private genre. The images, usually overexposed and out of focus owing to the difficulty of taking self-facing photographs without a viewfinder, typically remained on cameras and hard drives. But as social-media sites requiring a profile picture gained popularity, so, too, did the self-taken photograph.
From 2006 to 2009, the term “MySpace pic” described an amateurish, flash-blinded self-portrait, often taken in front of a bathroom mirror. Self-portraits shot with cell phones, or “selfies”—cheap-looking, evoking the MySpace era—became a sign of bad taste.
Part of the élitist frisson of Facebook, launched in 2004, was that many users found it superior to MySpace as a matter of both technology and taste. If one of the defining forms of self-representation on MySpace was the blurry bathroom selfie, set against a page decorated with graffiti and flashing graphics, Facebook profile photos—on a starched-white and Ralph Lauren-blue background—announced a clean, well-lit model of orderly selfhood. The MySpace selfie suggested a striptease (many men posed with their shirts off, directing attention to their torso); Facebook profile photos were generally proper—even preppy—in focus, and well lit.
The Facebook imperative to present oneself in crisp focus wasn’t just aesthetic—it had social implications as well. Owing to cameras’ technological limitations, a well-focussed photograph was typically taken from at least three feet away, by another person. This declared social belonging, even if the picture was snapped by someone who was not close to you and had been cropped to display only your face. (The viewer was reassured that you were not alone by the telltale jutting angle of your clavicle as your arms reached out to wrap around your friends’ shoulders.) It was also important to periodically include other people in profile photos, signifying a robust portfolio of friends. On Facebook, everyone appeared to have friends.
The subject of the MySpace bathroom selfie—with its tableaux of bathroom counter, mirror, face, and upper body—always looked alone.
(read the rest here http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/06/the-return-of-the-selfie.html
#ThirdPersonSelfie a hash tag predicting a future.
BTW: I don't know +christina superits but she shared this post publicly and sent me a personal notification so thanks for inspiring this commentary on the sign of the times Christina! #SocMed
Originally shared by +christina superits
How is this one recursive? I don't really see a picture of this picture inside this picture. She might be taking a picture of herself in the mirror, but I don't think it that's enough to classify it as an example of the Droste effect?
+Max Huijgen I'm kind of glad you never saw any of my selfies.
True +Filip H.F. Slagter I was looking for a one word description of these kind of shots, but I couldn't find a better one.
Are you referring to the difference between mirror-selfies and direct-selfies using the front camera (which is usually poorer rez) or the point at self from arms length and hope with the back camera, Max? I was confused too.
Ah too late to use it as as second image in the post, but this is the kind of photo I referred to http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m4reweptn41qe3yq8o1_500.jpg
you may want to stereotype people who take "selfies" but personally I dont have people to take portraits of my PROGRESS and I take selfies for friends, family and to chart how far ive come along. Therefore maybe you should use someones "narcissist" selfie and use that as an example of your stereotyping.
I understand you don't have people to shoot these +christina superits but why share them in public and with me through a notification if they are just for friends and family?
I don't know how you received an email notifying you I changed my profile picture but surely wasn't intended
Stop fighting! Can't you two see that you're in LOVE with each other?
^
I'm ashamed by now that I wasn't really commenting on the selfie itself, but on the photo of the selfie as new phenomenon +Ellis Booker +Alexander Conroy
I never realized I was in love myself 😉
+christina superits you clicked on 'email' Max when you posted and you used 'public' as the viewing circle. You surely meant to let me and a few hundred million others know that this was your new photo.
I could have used any selfie showing the making of a selfie for my comment, but you happened to notify me. Nothing personal on my behalf.
Narcissism is certainly an easy thing to consider, but after a similar "why" thought yesterday I was very interested to find more "personal branding" type concepts come into play, a process I tend to think of as a new one…
https://plus.google.com/u/0/108328852199584928218/posts/bNBA1v3Ch5N
Its funny how human psychology works… while reading reading your post with that pic and on this topic I totally and embarrassingly misread her name multiple times till i looked closer…. seriously no offense and completely innocent mistake. 🙂
Good find +Tren C
The tradition of the selfie is of course as old as Rembrandt (and probably even older). However showing the 'posing' setting seems more recent.
Thanks +Max Huijgen !
I wonder also, many people when they pick up a new artistic tool (pen, pencil, etc) tend to write their name.
Camera's seem to naturally extend this somewhat I think.
Perhaps because the posing setting is easier than ever with front facing cameras. With my S4 I can insert a framed selfie into any shot through the back camera.
+Max Huijgen I completely disagree. The self portrait is ages old and whether or not you buy into it…narcissism doesn't play as big a part as you seem to infer.
Capturing moments whether they be of others or ourselves to share now or save for later is as old as the ability to create pictures.
I think you should have taken a selfie and used yourself as the model for this post rather than someone else. BTW +christina superits you own the copyright on this photo and can submit a DCMA request with Google to have it removed from Max's post. I have submitted three successful requests and will be happy to walk you through the process.
I could pull up some mirror selfies with early digital cameras, even group mirror selfies. I don't think it would be a new thing, personally. Maybe a Vine video of someone else constructing their mirror selfie might be a nifty new trend.
+Pam Adger I'm not infering anything. I mention that selfies are often described in existing literature as a mix of narcissism and self-objectification. I personally find the latter more troublesome, but I don't draw any conclusion as Christina's reasons to take or share this photo.
check Google to see that there was nothing new in that observation. My post was wondering about the selfie as a subject of a photo. Is it
like I suggest based on historyan expression of wealth and importance? I leave it to future sociologist to figure it out.and btw why would christina submit a DCMA request to google for her own profile photo +Pam Adger?
I can hardly make a point if I post a picture of myself taking a picture of myself and then musing about the sign of the times is it 😉
Using her photo infers that you have an opinion about her photo. You didn't make it clear and….as usual you never admit when you are wrong.
Please provide links to the sources that call taking self portraits are self objectification and narcissism. First look narcissism up in the psychology dictionary and make sure you are saying what you mean to say. I don't think so. I happen to know narcissism is rather rare in it's true form. Maybe you mean self esteem, ego, or something similar?
Suggesting +Angyl Bender that it's not an artistic form but the lack of a front camera?
+Max Huijgen Yes you can. And she would submit the request because she doesn't like how you used her picture. It is her right and Google will only remove your copy of it…not her profile picture. And if they do…she can take another one. I am sure +christina superits no longer has you in her circles so you won't receive a notification about it.
Come on +Pam Adger You know I'm smart enough to know what I'm talking about; don't need a dictionary 😉 If you really want links just use google on narcissism selfie
Well Max I'm smart enough to tell the difference between opinion, researched hypothesis and fact. Your post falls into the first of the three categories I listed.
I don't always disagree with you but when I do…it's because your tone is rude and insulting. In this case Christina is the victim of your insensitivity. That rubs me the wrong way. You could have found an anonymous internet picture by searching images for "selfie."
+Rafa Él because that is where the mirrors are. My arm isn't long enough to use the front facing camera and capture the scope of the image I want to capture. The mirror allows me to take the picture I want to take.
+Pam Adger there are no anonymous pictures. There is someone in it. A real person. So I take a picture which is shared with the whole world AND came with a notification to me personally.
My ethics tell me taking an'anonymous' picture of (most likely) a young girl is not as good as using one shared with me and the world, who didn't lose that photo on a drunk night, but uses it for a profile. On top of that I address that person through a mention.
Don't know why I'm discussing this sideline with you btw.
Your ethics leave out that you took her picture and then painted a negative opinion. Don't forget that part. Oh and BTW….there are hundreds of thousands of male selfies…check Google images.
You are discussing this with me because I am posting my opinions about your behavior, choice of wording, your lack of awareness as to how others perceive your online demeanor (or your narcissism ; ) and your attitude about being confronted by the copyright owner of the photo you shared.
Your personal opinion of me is irrelevant.
I don't have a personal opinion of you, I wondered why I discussed it with you as I assume you're not Christine.
If you would actually read my post there is no negative comment on this selfie pose shot. I actually compare it with rich families having taking their photos and then publishing the creation of the photo instead of the result.
I have no idea why I need to know that there are male selfies. I mentioned Rembrandt, but I didn't have a photo of him taking a photo etc…..
Me not being Christine doesn't make my opinions less valid. She had her say. She isn't pleased and I have given her a way to fix it. If she chooses to leave it alone that's her choice. I still find your actions distasteful.
+Max Huijgen I love it! What a discourse. You may have accidentally but casually brushed a hornets nest. But it has made for some great reading while I eat my lunch.
Yes I noticed the hornets nest. Maybe we need new rules about public posts, emailing people about them and not blocking sharing.
If I ever change my profile photo and make a public post out of that minor event and notify a bunch of people, the last thing I would do is object to the use of that same post to illustrate an sociological observation and certainly not if that would be a flattering one.
Actually, I would be surprised if people wouldn't just ridicule my post (and if they did I would be amused)
I'm thinking of tagging you in every single selfie I post from now on. I was going to go back and tag you into the old ones…but it's too much work ; )
This is an interesting read by the way:
Before the rise of social media, in the mid-aughts, the self-taken photograph was a largely private genre. The images, usually overexposed and out of focus owing to the difficulty of taking self-facing photographs without a viewfinder, typically remained on cameras and hard drives. But as social-media sites requiring a profile picture gained popularity, so, too, did the self-taken photograph.
From 2006 to 2009, the term “MySpace pic” described an amateurish, flash-blinded self-portrait, often taken in front of a bathroom mirror. Self-portraits shot with cell phones, or “selfies”—cheap-looking, evoking the MySpace era—became a sign of bad taste.
Part of the élitist frisson of Facebook, launched in 2004, was that many users found it superior to MySpace as a matter of both technology and taste. If one of the defining forms of self-representation on MySpace was the blurry bathroom selfie, set against a page decorated with graffiti and flashing graphics, Facebook profile photos—on a starched-white and Ralph Lauren-blue background—announced a clean, well-lit model of orderly selfhood. The MySpace selfie suggested a striptease (many men posed with their shirts off, directing attention to their torso); Facebook profile photos were generally proper—even preppy—in focus, and well lit.
The Facebook imperative to present oneself in crisp focus wasn’t just aesthetic—it had social implications as well. Owing to cameras’ technological limitations, a well-focussed photograph was typically taken from at least three feet away, by another person. This declared social belonging, even if the picture was snapped by someone who was not close to you and had been cropped to display only your face. (The viewer was reassured that you were not alone by the telltale jutting angle of your clavicle as your arms reached out to wrap around your friends’ shoulders.) It was also important to periodically include other people in profile photos, signifying a robust portfolio of friends. On Facebook, everyone appeared to have friends.
(read the rest here http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/06/the-return-of-the-selfie.html
Yea Max, suggesting the bathroom selfie a) is not new, b) not even to digital photography c) relates to the difficulty of self-portraiture without any way to monitor the captured results d) is more spontaneous than the planned formal timer selfie e) unlike having someone else shoot you you can monitor your pose.. I'd relate it more to use of a webcam, which allowed lots of people to study their own poses and signaling, a thing lots of people now suggest aspiring public speakers do to tune their delivery. I appreciate the point of the snarky dig on narcissism since that's a very "you" angle but in a practical sense I challenge it, in a #justsayin sort of way. Not all signaling is narcissistic, and using a mirror for a selfie assists in control of one's signaling. I will agree that mirror selfies tend to lack in artistic composition and field awareness… But so do 98% of photos people post PERIOD.
Well of course it was private….I would have had to take the picture…have copies made for all of the people I was interacting with (before the internet) and send them in the mail.
It's not rocket science that the internet opened a whole new world of self expression. Have you seen Tumblr? How about any number of free streaming porn sites?
I still don't think that means narcissism…but I do think it means validation seeking behavior. That's why I post them. I like the positive responses I get. That doesn't make me a narcissist. It makes me human. I also dress nicely and wear makeup at work. Still not narcissism.
Well +Angyl Bender it also points out that before the rise of social media these pics weren't shared and most importantly for my post: that having that third person angle became crucial for social status.
+Pam Adger you're still on the subject of selfies which is not the subject of my post nor my interest.
Yes, I liked that article, it came in while I was typing. So picking on bathroom selfies is also indicative of classism, I agree. 😉
+Angyl Bender well put.
+Max Huijgen Really? The title of your post has the word selfie….the first sentence has the word selfie and you used someone's selfie as an example. It isn't until the very last paragraph that you mention anything about a third person.
So you created the illusion this was about selfies. There is no such thing as a selfie taken by someone else…that's just a photograph.
You should have used a photograph to ground your topic. It would have been much more effective in focusing the reader and the responses to the topic you wanted to discuss.
BTW, I agree with having a good profile picture…the rest of it is teenager bullshit. Social status by way of picture? I don't see that in the tribe I belong to here on G+. Do you?
I did use exactly the photograph I wanted: a third person view of a selfie.
Did you actually read the post +Pam Adger yes I use the word selfie but I need to as I refer to a 'classic' pose. I daresay I didn't create an illusion
With regards to profile photos: I don't have an opinion. You had to have one in the early days of G+ otherwise I wouldn't have shown my face. I hardly pay attention to them, but what does it matter? That was not the subject here.
You post selfies (apparently). I'm not attacking you or anyone on doing so; I don't like the self-objectification of women, but again, not the subject of this post.
The good thing is that I finally finished an article so it's time to go to bed. I will read the rest tomorrow…
Goodnight +Max Huijgen
I enjoyed the sparring as usual.
lol @ your last comment +Alexander Conroy I had to reread it and check the name as well 😉
As a final [related], +Lotus Carroll has done an amazing job of "taking back" the modern selfie and bringing artistry back into it. Hope you check it out in the morning Max, seriously good stuff she does.
(I'll take a woman making a conscious choice to mindfully display one of the few powers allowed to her by popular society – sex appeal, on her own terms – over a Thomas Hawk headless waitress-boobs any day.)
Women know full well how to use a selfie, boobs or a little bit of skin to get attention and increase follower count on social media. And I have no problem with that.
But there are numerous women who on one hand use self-glorification to increase popularity but on the other hand go off the deep end about the objectification of women. That I do have a problem with.
Do as you say and say as you do.
I don't know where I'm going with this, and I'm not even sure it's on-topic. 🙂
+Max Huijgen feel free to use this selfie as the image for this post: http://photographs.fixato.net/chesthair.jpg 😉
Oh, and +Alexander Conroy might enjoy this spoonerism: http://static.lolyard.com/lol/dig-bick.jpg
+Filip H.F. Slagter crap you got me on it lol! Both the text and the first read!
Just posted my own attempt at an infinite selfie. Why can't we have images in comments?
Did I just read that before MySpace, if you wanted to send a picture to someone you had to have it developed, copied a bunch of times and then mailed out to everyone via the post office? There was no Internet before……MySpace?! Okay, even if you wish to be more specific and say there was no social contact back then, nothing could be further from the truth. Those chat forums in Google Groups predate the entire concept of "www". Every forum or comment stack you see today was based on that concept.
Its a really nice picture am proud to see it
Actually there is only one real nazistic selfie on g+
https://plus.google.com/115114419648588506377/posts/T5qw7nUHfSQ
*sticks his head on a photocopier and presses the green button
Ouch, now I'm blinded for quite some time, but at least I have awesome selfies to spread around the office!
Next time I think I'll use some polaroids though….
Damn that blasted internet!
Go wayyyy back in the archives and check out Gopher and NNTP USENET. Groups at least initially supported NNTP and that entire concept is what was our "web" when most people on "the Internet" today were just babies (or even a zygote).
+Rafa Él I don't have mirrors in any of those places. I appreciate your opinion. I was giving you the reason why people take them in the bathroom. It's why I take them in the bathroom….or I use my webcam (my current profile picture). I'm not particularly worried about my silliness nor about anything but a box of tampons in the background. Those who choose not to survey the area before taking pictures become humorous fails in our stream.
+Steve Jackson and before Usenet various BBS systems such as Community Memory.
Of course, who can forget Doors and QWK packets.. there are a million examples of online social interactivity LONG before MySpace came along.
I was on CompuServe in the mid eighties so social is nothing new for me. But Ascii selfies were not as popular….
Prodigy on my C64, thank you very much. You knew it was big when uuencode changed EVERYTHING. You could still get the selfies.. it just took 13 hours on your 1200 baud modem. 300 just took too long 🙂
I remember being psyched at getting a DoubleDensity disk at an MSX fair which contained a picture of 8-year old me (give or take a few years?) taken by an MSX (an 80s homecomputer) with digitiser support.
We're now talking nerdy selfies +Filip H.F. Slagter +Steve Jackson 😉
psssh, I'm a proud geek! not a nerd! 😉
Yup, +Filip H.F. Slagter Even got the shirt from ThinkGeek!