To begin, I would like to address Wilk's framing of cyberspace. It was argued that cyberspace, particularly in the earlier days of the internet, was a plane in which one's experience was limited to what one could imagine and effectively communicate. Logically speaking, those who were less limited (those more inclined toward creativity) were more effective and thus less limited. Arguably then, this left a lot of space as subjectivity was power, and creativity was the currency. Wilk then goes on to site examples of what happened when this power was exercised over others. Her citing of the Mr_Bungle example expressed the need for an understanding of the nature of power even in what was hoped to have been a new, free, and slightly more egalitarian realm. What emerged was a need to address much of the same issues that arose in the hegemonic, patriarchal, capitalist tedium of reality. However, I would argue that an additional, less explicit issue needs to be brought at least to the realm of awareness; that is the gentrification of cyber space.
To get an idea of what I'm referring to, consider reddit.com. In order to belong to such a large and prominent web community, you must abide by "reddiquette"; a set of guide laws, or ettiquette, by which all members must abide. Failure to adhere to reddiquette is punished in a miriad of ways, from the removal of one's postings, banishment from subreddits (sub-communities), or overall termination of one's profile from reddit itself (haven't quite figured out if this counts as "exile", or "execution"), executed according to the will of Reddit Admins. Hopefully, I have highlighted enough here to illustrate "Reddit the social construct" as distinct from "Reddit the website".
How does this relate to the issue of gentrification? Those most *successful* in Reddit, and earn the most "karma" are those who also create the most effectively manipulate and navigate the rules of reddiquette as well as the rules of the individual subreddits. In other words, those most creative. Often, their success is at the mercy of the community, but there is a point at which it becomes apparent that the individual user is largely responsible for their standing in the community. Reddit's reward-punishment-banishment system encourages its users to improve themselves within the reddiquette context, thereby improving the quality of the community itself. #Gentrification
Granted, this is but one example, it is interesting, at least to me, that one's cyber identity in this space is contingent upon one's active involvement in the creation of one's identity. Your identity here is not reflexive as it is in non-cyber reality. In other words, (before I get too loose with my use of the term "reality") the cyber-community can not identify you unless you give them something to identify. Once this happens, they can return to you an assessment of their perception of your identity from which you can build or retract. It is my understanding that it is this phenomenon that Gill-Peterson refers to as #Technogenesis.
Technogenesis then implies active participation in one's existence on the cyber plane. This is important to note as I go on to the next section in my inquiry. It is from this point that I will implore my background in art, particularly in photography. Wilk mentions that there is a shift toward what she identifies as "New Realism". New realism is a divergence... or, more accurately, "a paradigmatic shift away from subjectivity to address a desire for somewhat objective realism" (I paraphrase here). #PicsOrItDidntHappen.
It isn't enough anymore to be the best writer, as the cyber community seeks more "tangible" evidence of your technogenesis. What this does, should you wish to be effective in your cyber-identity, is it gives you a degree of responsibility on top of your cybergenesis. You now document, manipulate, and control whatever occurrences you wish to associate yourself with. Photos, despite the subjectivity of Photo Manipulation Software, are the closest you can get to this objectivity.
...now here comes the fun part. To supplement the Creative's need for subjectivity with the Community's need for objectivity, we have altered the nature of the way in which we document out lives through photography. The self-portrait, an objective display of the self, has over the past few years been replaced with the "Selfie". I argue that that the Selfie is subjective identity creation in the presence of realism, because the subject has full control of:
1. the context under which they take the photo This refers to the Self in identity, and the manner in which one comports that self in order to create one's identity through the Selfie. It is in this circumstance that the individual displays their understanding of their own cyber-gender dynamics (eg. "Duckface","Shirtless in the Mirror", etc.. carry with them gendered implications). There are a number of poses that are identified as uniquely feminine, and others that are uniquely masculine, and one's identity is judged accordingly but primarily in the context of this reality, as these actions are seldomly repeated outside of the cyber reality
2. The context in which they display the photo By which I mean the vehicle for expression. One could take a self portrait for sake of documenting a moment for reflection or posterity, but I presume that it is often the case that this is instead for the purpose of cybergenesis
and
3. The context with which they associate the photo. Where you submit your Selfie says a lot about why you took it. However, what is most significant about this portion is that you can frame the Selfie in various contexts during the post-production phase. (To clarify this point, did you notice the hashtags in this text? This was a reason for them)
The Selfie is one of the means by which we create ourselves in the cyber reality. This is our active participation, as artisans. Not only are we interdependent on technology, but we embrace its capabilities and limitations as a means by which to forge ourselves; new selves at that.
No comments:
Post a Comment