Would you think the same of an art project that removed, say, watches from people's wrists as they check the time? Or maybe hammers from the hands from people working in construction?
No, because these things don’t isolate us from each other. You have a number of couples in the photographs that are close physically yet miles and miles apart.
Oh yes let's all remember 2005 when no one ever looked in the mirror and everyone in big city public transport held hands and sung folk songs on their morning commute.
For the record I have sung songs with a subway car full of people on Chicago's Red Line. Was not during commuting hours tho. Alcohol was probably a bigger factor than the presence of cell phones.
Are you honestly saying that this (neat) art piece, which is of carefully curated shots taken over months, is general proof that phones are some fundamentally different mode of isolation, compared to any other tool that humans have had?
I would actually be interested to hear you explain why, in terms of social isolation, phones are not a fundamentally different mode of isolation than any other human tool.
I sometimes wonder if it is the ubiquity of the phone that allows us to use it as a framework (or that it reveals in some egregious way we cannot ignore) a fundamental social state of modernism that has, in one form or another, been there since its inception. And that we an ignore this because, prior to the contemporary age, there remains so little detailed record if the lives of the, for lack of a better term, masses. Now everyone can comment on youtube videos no matter where they're at in the world or what else they may be doing at the moment. So that we are overwhelmed with our own banality, subsumed beneath a flood of images and messages that we are beginning to feel in some instinctual sense, can never approach in even the most rudimentary of ways, that which we have called communication.
Social media are designed to be as addictive as possible. Smartphones have replaced a great number of tools and devices. At the end of the day it's up to the individuals to not spend a lot of time on their phones, but, I can see it's hard for most people. At least around me (including myself). Another thing I've noted is the exhaustion experienced after spending a long time on your smartphone.
I would say that. Most other tools have a "pull" dynamic where the user has made the decision to use them. Instead, while phones also have this dynamic, they also have a "push" dynamic where someone else, or even just an automated notification, can demand your attention.
The second noteworthy distinction is phones' ability to solve many different problems as well as provide many different willful distractions in a very accessible manner. A tool that can be both productive and entertaining requires a higher amount of willpower to use productively without succumbing to the desire to use it for entertainment.
Some of the most productive coding I've done has been in places where there was no internet to temp me with distractions.
This is depressing. What's the point of taking another smartphone picture of the Mona Lisa. So they can go home and show or post on some "social" website another smartphone pic of the Mona Lisa? I guess I just don't get it.
I think comparing the watch removal to the phone removal would really drive the point home - I don't think you see a lot of couples checking their watches at the same time.
I think I get the point your making - a phone is a tool, and useful, like watches and hammers. But watches, hammers, and even books aren't designed to make you addicted to them. Lots of things on phones are.
And lots of things on phones aren't... but the most addictive aspects are the most prevalent.
If you've never gotten into a dopamine cycle with a good book (we usually just call this "a page turner" or "couldn't put it down") then I think that's kinda sad itself.
Books are definitely designed to make you addicted to them in a similar way that apps and games often are.
I don't know, I just can't see this as a meaningful representation.
Maybe I'm biased because I don't check my phone all the time - but you could get a snapshot of me in most of these situations. It would just not be an accurate depiction of how I live my life. It's like "hey I have a picture of you washing your hands, how many minutes per day do you spend in front of a sink?".
Sure, everyone who goes to concerts knows those people who film every minute. But if you time it right you'll also see me taking a quick picture, that's a few seconds once or twice on a 3h concert.
In the "about" section it explains that he approaches people who are using their phones, and then asks them to remove the phones and pose as if they were using their phones.
He must have met a ton of people on this project, which is really cool.
I get, and appreciate, where I feel the artist is going with this: a reflection on the loneliness epidemic and our relationship to technology. BUT I think one layer of meta out is just as creepy and weirdly out of context once you start erasing things. Namely the picture of the couple in bed is another level of creepy if there is some guy/girl hovering over them staring at them with a digitally-erased camera.
Congratulations, you've just confronted the suspension of disbelief regarding pornography, such that having a camera in the room somehow renders the act as "not prostitution" by virtue of performers (rather than johns and hookers) "putting on a show."
I guess what I'm trying to say is which is more depressing or sad: a couple ignoring each other, or a guy watching a couple ignore each other, or even, if I were to turn the lens on myself, a guy watching another guy watching a couple ignore each other.
Being in a relationship doesn’t mean you have to pay attention to each other constantly. Some people read books/magazines/papers before sleeping, and some others do stuff on their phones.
Being back to back in physical contact, even while also engaging in some other activity, is not necessarily (or, IME, even most likely) ignoring each other.
I agree with what you are saying, in regards to a healthy relationship… But, I'm nearly positive that's not the message that is being conveyed by the artist/photographer in this image/collection of images. So, I'm not really sure where you are going with this.
> But, I'm nearly positive that's not the message that is being conveyed by the artist/photographer in this image/collection of images. So, I'm not really sure where you are going with this.
I actually think it's very much part of the message of the particular image it concerns (at least, it's part of what I take from it because of how it resonates with my personal experience), to wit, the whole collection speaks to the pervasiveness of the smartphone in modern society, and the image in question speaks specifically into it's insertion into moments of casual intimacy.
In a lot of these pictures, you could probably substitute a small paperback book. When I was growing up before cellphones, I knew a lot of people who would keep a small book with them that they would read in line or when at a a table.
I try not to complain about this, but something is super janky with the carousel. It feels like it loads 2 pictures ahead and doesn't let you show the next until the one after that is loaded.
This is one of those things that seems deep but really isn't, maybe a step above Banksy. I don't mean to imply that there aren't issues with our relationship with technology, but these photos are an awfully ham-fisted criticism. I read this article back when it was published and it's stuck with me because it provides a more nuanced and thoughtful view of our relationship with technology.
>Some people feel something is amiss in their relationships, and that technology is to blame. There's a move, cataloged in nearly every magazine, towards seeing the offline as authentic and the online as hollow, false, unreal. This may be a false distinction, digital dualism, as Nathan Jurgenson calls it, but it's a widespread reaction to the technologies at hand.
>The vision promises that if it weren't for all the damn new stuff (like watches), we'd all be sitting around sharing the parts of ourselves that we're ashamed of, supporting others in their most meaningful endeavors, and paying mind only to worthy causes and ideas.
>I refuse to accept that the only good response to an imperfect technology is to abandon it. We need more specific criticisms than the ever-present feeling that "'something's not right." What thing? Developing a political agenda to remake, improve, or forbid technologies requires some sort of rubric: how can I judge what I'm using? What are the deleterious impacts? How are they specific to these media and this time? Which effects are caused by the technologies and which are enabled by the technologies and which just happen to occur through the technologies? What are the ethics? What are the mechanics? What is the baseline?
My largest criticism of our oneness with phone is that, no matter how responsible you are with them, they removes you from being fully present.
For consumption of media--which most people use it for--it's like sitting down and opening a book or paging through a magazine. When you're with others, it immediately puts you into a private space that your mind is attempting to connect to, disconnecting from the present.
It's counter to mindfulness. Even when you open up your phone for just 10 seconds to check on something, you're distracting yourself from being present--regardless of how responsible you are with it.
That said, I don't have any problems with hanging out with friends or family and reading a book. I've done that my whole life, but it's not appropriate for times when you're trying to actively be there and have a connection with them.
There's little difference between having a friend pull our a book or their phone when trying to watch a movie together, but our phones are so intertwined with who we are, it's easy to not see it that way.
Worth noting that the use of black and white isn't just an Instagram-style filter being applied in Photoshop; the photographer is making these images on black and white film, using a large format camera that's not too different from the ones people were using to take portraits a hundred years ago. You can see a picture of the artist and his camera on this page [0].
By the title you’d assume these are candid shots of people in real life situations with the phones digitally removed.
The actual method the photographer used was to stage situations, and acquire models to act out scenarios for maximum effect.
I don’t know how the production of said images will effect the viewer - but I think it’s important to point out - as it does effect the content. This is staged art. This isn’t documentary.
So "I don’t know how the production of said images will effect the viewer" should be "I don’t know how the production of said images will affect the viewer".
I'd argue that both uses are incorrect here, and that's probably why it caught me so off guard. If you look at "it does effect the content", what does "it" refer to? The production? In that case, it'd technically be true that the production brings about the content, but that's almost certainly not the intended meaning here because it's a tautology. The much more likely intended meaning is that the specific manner of production affects (as in, makes a difference to) the content.
Thanks, I was looking at the hands and wondering this myself. I would have been a lot more impressed if these were candid shots and then the photographer got images of hands or close likenesses and photographed them in the same positions and then photoshopped them in.
You're right, I misinterpreted it. My mistake, sorry about that. Hopefully a mod can update the title.
Here's the explanation from the photographer on how they were made:
"The large format portraits are of individuals who appear to be holding personal devices although the devices have been physically removed from the sitter’s hand. They are asked to hold their stare and posture as I remove their device and then I make the exposure."
Looking at these photos makes me realize we have a major body posture problem. No wonder people are having pain in the neck and back a lot!
Also, the physicality of looking down all the time, hunched over, bent neck, is a literal embodiment of the word "downcast" -- and we wonder why depression is at an all time high. We literally practice being downcast all the time.
Looking at this and having these thoughts makes me realize that I need to adjust my phone habits.
As an artistic statement this just feels... infantile.
Before phones, people were reading books or magazines separately in bed, or reading newspapers on the train. When I traveled to various third-world countries before phones were a thing and people didn't have money for newspapers, people stared blankly out into space on the train or bus or shared van. People weren't social with strangers. In various modern African cities, I just couldn't believe how much boredom was part of everyday life. And there didn't seem to be any redeeming qualities to the boredom... just boring, boring boredom.
Likewise (back in the US), children out at a cafe with the parents would sit drawing or reading children's books or yes, being bored out of their skulls (instead of on a cell phone now with books or games that practice hand-eye coordination). I remember long car trips as a child as excruciatingly, horribly, mind-numbingly boring.
And as for photos showing someone photographing... we've had cameras for many decades... I don't get the point at all.
I'm not even remotely convinced that phones are somehow making us less social. Rather they save us from extreme boredom, keep us in close touch with out intimate friends all day long if we choose, and even make it so much easier to see people and flexibly change plans. Remember when being "stood up" was a thing? In my experience it's... not, anymore. Someone will send you a message an hour beforehand they won't be able to make it, saving you a trip and letting you make new plans if you want.
> people stared blankly out into space on the train or bus or shared van [...] boredom was part of everyday life
I wouldn't necessarily call that boredom, not in all cases anyway. Not having the constant ADHD content/info/distraction feed phones provide can be a boon too.
Seems like the judgment of "depressing" or "creepy" one puts on these images comes from foreknowledge of what the subjects are reading on those phones.
For example-- is there a popular app that helps citizens effectively organize resistance against a burgeoning fascist government without giving side-channel access for nation-state influencers to easily undo that effort?
If the dad were posting on that and the kid viewing the thread, that would seem pretty cool and important.
But I don't think that app exists, which may be close to the fundamental problem than the hardware itself. In reality the overwhelming likelihood is that whatever the pair are reading is not as valuable as the quality time dad and son are missing out on.
An acquaintance of mine became a photographer and also made a collection of people with phones on the streets.
But instead of going for the easy societal critic, he got a more diverse use of phones into his photos.
You can see several occasions where phones were being used as a tool for social, presential, phisycal-world connection between people having a good time.
I’ve been getting into the habit of turning my phone off, putting it in a drawer, and leaving it there for as much time as possible.
It sounds absurd, but the results have been fantastic and similar to what I’ve experienced from meditation, long-distance running or similar activities. It’s best described as feeling “grounded”, as if I’m actually alive in the world and not just floating from one room to the next. I end up noticing more about my neighborhood as well, especially irrelevant little things like floor tile patterns or differences between plants on the sidewalk.
My best theory on the topic is: if you only speak one language, the vast majority of internet is essentially a fairly small, uniform, static entity. Whether you log on from Tokyo or Toronto, the software is the same - same colors on Google, same design on Facebook, etc. When you unplug, this uniformity largely disappears and you’re forced to really pay attention to the world around you. As a result, the world feels much bigger.
Ogg remember when tool didn't exist. People lived in moment. Now Ogg see plow tilling field and just shake head. What happened to working together for betterment of society? Now beast pull plow?
"[Phone/Technology/Social Media/War/Orange Man/Consumerism] Bad" all seem like EXTREMELY tapped markets in the art world. This seems like something a deep middle-schooler would put out, in my opinion.
Same works if you remove a spoon and porridge. This is uttlery meaningless even if it were real life. Projecting behavioural triggers on technology is flawed most of the time.
83 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 128 ms ] threadThe second noteworthy distinction is phones' ability to solve many different problems as well as provide many different willful distractions in a very accessible manner. A tool that can be both productive and entertaining requires a higher amount of willpower to use productively without succumbing to the desire to use it for entertainment.
Some of the most productive coding I've done has been in places where there was no internet to temp me with distractions.
https://artsmetaphor.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Mona-Lis...
It's called humble-brag.
https://petapixel.com/2013/03/14/a-starry-sea-of-cameras-at-...
I think I get the point your making - a phone is a tool, and useful, like watches and hammers. But watches, hammers, and even books aren't designed to make you addicted to them. Lots of things on phones are.
And lots of things on phones aren't... but the most addictive aspects are the most prevalent.
If you've never gotten into a dopamine cycle with a good book (we usually just call this "a page turner" or "couldn't put it down") then I think that's kinda sad itself.
Books are definitely designed to make you addicted to them in a similar way that apps and games often are.
Sure, everyone who goes to concerts knows those people who film every minute. But if you time it right you'll also see me taking a quick picture, that's a few seconds once or twice on a 3h concert.
There's one where the phone was covering a lady's face (USA set). I wonder how they did that. Photoshop must be magic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8TsV3IExYg
CGTN is funded in whole or in part by the Chinese government
Screenshot: https://screenshotscdn.firefoxusercontent.com/images/7bd277c...
Presumably YouTube is also required to indicate that status.
He must have met a ton of people on this project, which is really cool.
Being back to back in physical contact, even while also engaging in some other activity, is not necessarily (or, IME, even most likely) ignoring each other.
I actually think it's very much part of the message of the particular image it concerns (at least, it's part of what I take from it because of how it resonates with my personal experience), to wit, the whole collection speaks to the pervasiveness of the smartphone in modern society, and the image in question speaks specifically into it's insertion into moments of casual intimacy.
(With the exception of Japan and South Korea, of course.)
It's like I still could occasionally catch some Cambodian rock'n'roll around a corner: https://youtube.com/watch?v=i3QPTefh7bQ
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/07/camp-...
>Some people feel something is amiss in their relationships, and that technology is to blame. There's a move, cataloged in nearly every magazine, towards seeing the offline as authentic and the online as hollow, false, unreal. This may be a false distinction, digital dualism, as Nathan Jurgenson calls it, but it's a widespread reaction to the technologies at hand.
>The vision promises that if it weren't for all the damn new stuff (like watches), we'd all be sitting around sharing the parts of ourselves that we're ashamed of, supporting others in their most meaningful endeavors, and paying mind only to worthy causes and ideas.
>I refuse to accept that the only good response to an imperfect technology is to abandon it. We need more specific criticisms than the ever-present feeling that "'something's not right." What thing? Developing a political agenda to remake, improve, or forbid technologies requires some sort of rubric: how can I judge what I'm using? What are the deleterious impacts? How are they specific to these media and this time? Which effects are caused by the technologies and which are enabled by the technologies and which just happen to occur through the technologies? What are the ethics? What are the mechanics? What is the baseline?
For consumption of media--which most people use it for--it's like sitting down and opening a book or paging through a magazine. When you're with others, it immediately puts you into a private space that your mind is attempting to connect to, disconnecting from the present.
It's counter to mindfulness. Even when you open up your phone for just 10 seconds to check on something, you're distracting yourself from being present--regardless of how responsible you are with it.
That said, I don't have any problems with hanging out with friends or family and reading a book. I've done that my whole life, but it's not appropriate for times when you're trying to actively be there and have a connection with them.
There's little difference between having a friend pull our a book or their phone when trying to watch a movie together, but our phones are so intertwined with who we are, it's easy to not see it that way.
The black and white takes away a lot of the impact, it's too bad.
The black and white reads to me as a way to pull out the distractions, to focus only on the form.
It's fine for landscapes, but not for people.
It's you've ever seen a dead body, it's very pale, like a black and white photo.
(It's understandable for old photos before color was possible, but there's really no reason to do it today.)
[0]: https://www.ericpickersgill.com/about-eric-pickersgill-remov...
It's one thing if it made the end result better, but it doesn't.
The actual method the photographer used was to stage situations, and acquire models to act out scenarios for maximum effect.
I don’t know how the production of said images will effect the viewer - but I think it’s important to point out - as it does effect the content. This is staged art. This isn’t documentary.
(I'm sorry. My English is far from perfect either, I just really stumbled over this one for some reason.)
> When used as a verb effect means ‘to bring something about as a result’. It’s most often used in a formal context as oppose to everyday English:
> Growth in the economy can only be effected by stringent economic controls.
> The new policies did little to effect change.
> The prime minister effected many policy changes.
Edit: there are two places were effect is used as a verb in that comment. I'm referring to the last one.
Here's the explanation from the photographer on how they were made:
"The large format portraits are of individuals who appear to be holding personal devices although the devices have been physically removed from the sitter’s hand. They are asked to hold their stare and posture as I remove their device and then I make the exposure."
https://www.removed.social/about/
Also, the physicality of looking down all the time, hunched over, bent neck, is a literal embodiment of the word "downcast" -- and we wonder why depression is at an all time high. We literally practice being downcast all the time.
Looking at this and having these thoughts makes me realize that I need to adjust my phone habits.
Before phones, people were reading books or magazines separately in bed, or reading newspapers on the train. When I traveled to various third-world countries before phones were a thing and people didn't have money for newspapers, people stared blankly out into space on the train or bus or shared van. People weren't social with strangers. In various modern African cities, I just couldn't believe how much boredom was part of everyday life. And there didn't seem to be any redeeming qualities to the boredom... just boring, boring boredom.
Likewise (back in the US), children out at a cafe with the parents would sit drawing or reading children's books or yes, being bored out of their skulls (instead of on a cell phone now with books or games that practice hand-eye coordination). I remember long car trips as a child as excruciatingly, horribly, mind-numbingly boring.
And as for photos showing someone photographing... we've had cameras for many decades... I don't get the point at all.
I'm not even remotely convinced that phones are somehow making us less social. Rather they save us from extreme boredom, keep us in close touch with out intimate friends all day long if we choose, and even make it so much easier to see people and flexibly change plans. Remember when being "stood up" was a thing? In my experience it's... not, anymore. Someone will send you a message an hour beforehand they won't be able to make it, saving you a trip and letting you make new plans if you want.
Do you also find nude photographs infantile?
I wouldn't necessarily call that boredom, not in all cases anyway. Not having the constant ADHD content/info/distraction feed phones provide can be a boon too.
Seems like the judgment of "depressing" or "creepy" one puts on these images comes from foreknowledge of what the subjects are reading on those phones.
For example-- is there a popular app that helps citizens effectively organize resistance against a burgeoning fascist government without giving side-channel access for nation-state influencers to easily undo that effort?
If the dad were posting on that and the kid viewing the thread, that would seem pretty cool and important.
But I don't think that app exists, which may be close to the fundamental problem than the hardware itself. In reality the overwhelming likelihood is that whatever the pair are reading is not as valuable as the quality time dad and son are missing out on.
But instead of going for the easy societal critic, he got a more diverse use of phones into his photos.
You can see several occasions where phones were being used as a tool for social, presential, phisycal-world connection between people having a good time.
Worth taking a look:
http://www.thomasfreier.com/fotografia-celular-eles/
It sounds absurd, but the results have been fantastic and similar to what I’ve experienced from meditation, long-distance running or similar activities. It’s best described as feeling “grounded”, as if I’m actually alive in the world and not just floating from one room to the next. I end up noticing more about my neighborhood as well, especially irrelevant little things like floor tile patterns or differences between plants on the sidewalk.
My best theory on the topic is: if you only speak one language, the vast majority of internet is essentially a fairly small, uniform, static entity. Whether you log on from Tokyo or Toronto, the software is the same - same colors on Google, same design on Facebook, etc. When you unplug, this uniformity largely disappears and you’re forced to really pay attention to the world around you. As a result, the world feels much bigger.