Friday, 23 February 2007

Hair today, gone tomorrow - will online friendships Flickr and die?

Everyone on Flickr is so damn nice. Sure enough, there are some breathtaking images on display. Absolutely worldclass stuff. But there's some pretty mundane shots too. And even the better ones could do with a tweak here and there.

In my experience real world photographers are a pretty miserly breed. Stood alone waiting for the sun to fall, you may exchange a pleasantry or two with the fellow stood beside - but there's no eye contact. You clutch your lens and face forward. That's if you have a companion. Often you haunt the sunset alone - an outcast, a wanderer questing for mysterious images - truths - with which to amaze civilisation upon your return.

There's lots of sneering in technical photography too. Lots of F-stops and apertures and shutters for one to misplace, lots of room for some scientific type to lavish you with dismissive snorts and "hahs".

Online, however, the photographer is, so Flickr leads me to believe, a breed apart. Comments crowd about your capture with praise and applause. "Great capture", "Nice one", "Cool", "Love it!!!" - with such a vocabularly and nothing more you could interact with all and never would anyone think sneer to another about your limited lexicon - let alone your F-stops.

My first assumption on visiting the page was that there'd be an awful lot of "tried too hard and f*cked the exposure - lousy work - pack it in". There is not. Of course, praise can be plentiful or it can be scarce. Perhaps the harshest comment is no comment at all.

Photography, however, seems to play second string to community on Flickr. What can one say of a community with a shared exchange of some ten words - nine if you don't count "nice", as one quite rightly should not.

My immediate reaction is to say that it will be a shortlived community at best. Imagine a real world friend with whom you often spoke. In two word couplets "great, mate". The relationship would lack a certain frisson. It is easy to look at the vast tracts of positive global whitewash and denounce Flickr as something trivial and banal. Transcedent images, washed with a stream of effluent praise, no stronger than cowgum.

This would be incorrect, however. Behind the scenes, there is more meaningful contact, in niche groups. The discussion is as much social as it is photographic. The photos are in some cases the tip of the iceberg, and it is beneath the water that groups of friends share their private thoughts as well as their public back slapping. Moreover, the photographs, as catalyst, give focus to some rather esoteric niches. Have a look if you don't believe me - maybe you have been waiting all your life to join the "Japanese Red Hunting Lizard" pool. You won't find that in the back of the Express.

At this stage you realise that not everyone on Flickr is a professional photographer (myself excepted). For others, this is not a showcase of artwork, but a diary of life. Friday nights out, Birthday parties, the mundane shared not to argue aperture, or poo-poo shutter speeds, but simply to bring their friends in this global community up to speed on what they're up to.

If they want to throw a few words of congratulations about whilst they're at it, where's the harm in that? At the end of the day, that's the point of the thing.


This great shot of Ms. Spears pre-sheers the work of www.natanael.blogspot.com, of Flickr.

9 comments:

Peter said...

That really made me think about a kind of ethno-socio-louis-theroux-type investigation of the real meaning of online community. How does it differ to the real world. e.g. great that you can keep in touch with your old auntie but don't have to kiss her. Even better, don't have to eat her days-old-pie. On the other hand, can't really chat in the same way ... and can't be sure you'll end up in her will. What if one of your cousins is sneaking round on a regular basis and dissing your online comments? What is he's cut her internet cable? etc. etc. There are a lot of pros and cons
in moving from the real world to the online. Lots of things we haven't thought about yet.

Nice one!

hmatt said...

Lolo's post made me wonder - is the general banality of comments left to some degree a function of people's contraction to use of English?

Doesn't account for the whole thing, but perhaps one reason for the generally rather limited vocab.

Unknown said...

Hair yesterday, goon tomorrow. Thought-provoking stuff, but I'm not sure that there's a clear distinction to be drawn between the "real" world and the "virtual" one. They are inextricably intertwined and affect each other continually.

pc said...

There's a fair amount of 'commenting for commenting's sake' going on with sites like Flickr. Why? So people look to be popular in the virtual world.

But that does it a huge dis-service. As you rightly mention, there are meningful, real interactions going on here behind the facade. Yes, japanese red hunting lizards is something of a niche, but it is a niche that obviously needed to be catered for and web2.0 helps fill the void.

This is the age of the long tail...countless niches, all waiting to be filled in some respect with an online community.

Or is it all just noise? Will it wither and die?

BTW...I think the serious photographers use www.smugmug.com - another niche. Maybe F-stops get more airtime there!!!

PC.

Unknown said...

I enjoy using Flickr,I saw this blog via Flickr
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kiragmch634/

hmatt said...

Thank you, all, for giving your perspectives.

Torriolanus - a rather Shakespearean (to be expected given your name, perhaps?) but very valid point. The whole world's a stage, etc.

One difference between the virtual and "real" world's is in terms of transaction costs. Imagine the cost of reaching an audience of millions in print, on TV, radio, etc. Significantly greater than the price of reaching them online.

Depending on your view of established media, you might say that the quality of "nice one" posts is proportionally poorer as it is cheaper to distribute.

Conversely, for niche audiences, I would suggest it's not only much cheaper, but also better quality material. And they have the satisfaction of helping to create it.

Hopefully there is a point in this ramble - if you can unpick it, and feel so moved to comment I'd be interested in what you thought!

hmatt said...

Gretchen - if I might be controversial, and not wanting to appear unappreciative, that's a rather Flickr-esque comment you've left us!

hmatt said...

PC - thanks for the smugmug tip. Indeed, more F-stops here, though still some rather fluffy comments.

Perhaps another niche exists for "terse, unfairly critical, borderline sociopathic photographers". I rather suspect this lot are still on 35mm slide film, however.

Long Tail is a great book, but I do think Anderson over orders the Tail. Niches at the decreasing minuteness of interest tend to spill out of larger mini-niches, and intersect with others, to a much greater extent than accounted for in his theory.

Rather than a nice neat tail, I see it as a vast, sparking, amorphous cloud. Nebulous, in an only partially figurative way.

Unknown said...

Indeed the cost of reaching a mass audience of millions in print or on TV must be significantly greater than the price of reaching them online, but it’s easier to predict whom you are going to reach and in what numbers via the old-fashioned media. And what attention they might pay to it. One thinks of the massive “spam” mailouts, virtually costfree, but which mostly get deleted unopened and serve only to annoy some of those who do open them. But I think you have a valid point about niches. Just as the audiences for specialised traditional media are likely to be self-selecting and therefore both interested and interesting to the media-owners, so visitors to specialised sites will be the same. Like this one, perhaps.