What is the difference between the TV screen and the mobile screen?
Television offers us a la carte happiness with the possibility of exempting us from the responsibility of our acts. The social contract with the networks is different. They work through the mechanism of permanent gratification, of wanting more like it, and this is why we are aware of the publication and the response it is generating. There's a kind of blackmail: until you put it I like it You expect that others will take you too. They are not honest relationships. Looking at someone is a way to empower them and stop watching someone is taking power. On the way we make a hug and gratification has passed, and we can dedicate ourselves to perhaps more interesting things. I think we are not questioning enough about the relationship we want to have with images.
I would say we threw our heads. We even transmit our intimate life.
There are authors who consider that we are in the life sector stage. Now, the emotions or social behavior of the human being are tradable. Companies no longer trade with goods, but with their own lives.
But, normally, we do not have an account on the market, but to exist.
Exactly. In fact, we could adapt Descartes' phrase and say "I am seen, so I exist". We do not want any more pleasure. We want to be recognized. Although we do nothing in life, we want to be recognized by others. And in the culture of telereality, which occupies 80% of the programming grids, it has accelerated even more. There are students who want to be famous as a vital project. And, indeed, the figure of YouTuber go here: that a person can be famous with a video that crashes one day and the day after has a million visits. And the idea that you have achieved fame but not because you have distorted the meritocratic idea of making a place in life through your effort.
Why is Instagram successful?
For different reasons. It is an image, and with the image everything is communicated in an immediate way, it is not like reading a newspaper, a time of prudent interpretation is necessary. Images are a universal language. Languages are not required. You have the "Like" and you have the tag, which makes it possible to group all the images that were not together.
Are we at the moment of the image?
We are at the moment of data, this is the reason for the matter. Words also no longer communicate but generate value because they are analyzed once you have launched them on the network. Facebook has taken 700,000 users and modified its own deadlines with positive and negative news, to see how his communication has changed based on the stimuli received. Result: on Facebook, the most negative news tend to have less visibility, because since the interaction of the network makes you feel that everything that happens has to do with you, people do not want bad news. On television, however, the bad news is seen as having nothing to do with you.
The images are so trapped that if Messi now enters the door and we ask people if they want to be ten minutes talking to him without a picture or wanting to take a picture …
… people would prefer the photo. If you plan a meeting thinking about the photo you are going to do, you are not aware of the meeting, but of the photo. Therefore, the images not only certify that there was a meeting, but they can replace the experience of the meeting because they do not interact. The photo is a trophy, shows your value. Your salary depends on those around you. And since the connection with a star is a rather precious thing, you'll have more I like it. Think about it
Could you give me some temporary conclusions?
Well, this attracts a world where the facts have no consequences. We do things thinking about your public representation. It transforms us into actors of a comedy. And it counts, because when you adopt a character on Facebook in the end you can not be anything else. People are already waiting for you, if you're bad-tempered, make the monologue of twenty lines that break the news. And this can end with an anxiety crisis.
In social networks we are developing a relationship of loyalty, that is, of submission, to the commercial brand or the star of the show. But real life requires commitment; therefore, reciprocity. And I saw among my students, especially girls, perhaps because they are more aware of the problem, more of an anxiety crisis when they see that life has no button on / Street and that there is a commitment, that the acts have consequences. We must promote links with institutions, people or associations. Before, your young room was the place where you faced your thought, it was a place of doubt, disconnection, of reset. Now, the room is a place without pauses, where a video is made, a message is sent, a message is put such as… continue connected. You have to leave the room.
Are the photos hanging from our children an abuse of their privacy?
I've been a mom this year and I think the idea of someone explaining their child's life before being self-conscious is very strange. Perhaps it is not necessary for others to see my life before I have been able to decide what relationship I want to have with images. We have more photos than memories. My students have more pictures of their last day than my parents for life. This difference changes everything. And there is the right to forget. I think you should be very careful with the children.
The other day I read that a seven-year-old girl told her mother "Mom, no photo today."
That's how they took pictures of the festive moments that left the ordinary. Now everything has to be extraordinary, with everyone all the time showing their happiness, excitement, eccentricity.
Does the cell phone hear what we say?
Yes. With many applications, women have access to audio. For example, to download an image you need to access the device memory and say "Accept". In many cases, the phone is a microphone and a camera that, randomly, is able to record everything that is commented.
Does this mean that we give our privacy voluntarily or involuntarily?
We do it voluntarily, but it has an involuntary point because it is not explained well enough. And beware: if only five private companies have data, they will have the monopoly of the future. They will know what it is about people, they will know everything. With the consequence that the market will anticipate the needs of the individual much more.
This means that the prophecy of Orwell in 1984 of the "Big Brother looking at you" has decreased?
It has failed because now we control ourselves with your own will. We are not one 1984, from Orwell, but a A happy world, by Huxley. In social networks it means that we are happy. This is worrying. It draws an unbeatable being when vulnerability, fragility, interdependence and cohabitation, and the idea of strong men and women who can, courageous mothers, etc. should be defended in reality. They should be disassembled. Perhaps we can not do so much, we depend more on one from the other and we show weaknesses to build a stronger world.
I'm afraid we're not here, on the contrary. Our millennials are the first generation that has learned to smile in the camera like the Americans have always done.
Many years passed from the birth of photography to the first smile in the story room. It is a gesture learned, it is not natural. Hollywood stars smile at the camera. Advertising embodies characters that smile on the camera. This happens because there are so many images available in which we live in the mode of economic attention and therefore we no longer try to sell a product but to attract people's attention. To capture it, what do you have to do? Show images of extreme happiness, which are what will seem a little longer.
You say that every culture creates its reality and that the 11-S plane incorporated into the Twin Towers has created the new American culture of fear, of the need to make war.
There was a management of the public image on the images that had been seen. The image of the towers that fell, without death, without diverting attention from personal tragedy, turned it into a symbolic national tragedy. When there was an attack on Barcelona, the idea of not showing the dead, of protecting the image, immediately went through the public sphere. People realize the power of images.
So, if we bring it into the field of creating a Catalan reality through images, the images we see over and over again are those of police charges 1-O.
For me, what is curious is that TV3 has been used almost illegally. Independent independent television stations were not omitted, but they used the rhetoric "of which there was not much". That is, they did something smarter, malevolent and arrogant, that is, "since I can not go against the facts, I go against the use of images", as if the facts did not exist. What happens when you often insist on a type of image? You can not explain the event more widely. It's like porn. It fragments the body and concentrates on the person's genitals, which serve to excite the viewer.
I think that the images of the 1-O have the universal value of the attack on the civil right to vote and decide the future of the country.
But when you repeat them, you will saturate the optical unconscious. Do you know what the problem is? They have not been compared with other forms of subordination and violence. This global story was not made by the media. It has not been said that we are in a world that tends to repress and that we can see it here, here and in Catalonia. I hope it would have been done.
In short, just as we have learned to read words, do we need to learn how to read images?
Totally. When you lose the context, you lose the option to understand or see the contradictions of what you are communicating with. In fact, the trap of today's society is that it seems like you've seen something, you understand better. Well no