music, culture, discourse, new media
discourse
That Darned Sock: Considering the Lifecycle of Clothing
Aug 18th
Any chance you know how to darn a sock?
Me neither.
Do you know what it *means* to darn a sock?
Me neither. Well, until about ten minutes ago, when someone explained it to me for the sake of this topic.
Darning is a technique used to repair small holes in socks and other garments. Using a needle and thread, you form stitches across the gap of the hole.
We don’t need to know about darning because when a sock gets holey, we throw the pair away. Right? Just as easily, we can purchase a brand-new replacement pair. Maybe even an upgrade – a pair of socks made from a more luxurious material, perhaps boasting a more defining cut or whimsical color and/or pattern.
When clothing goes the way of unfortunate rips, holes, stains, or other malfunctions, the easiest thing to do is replace, replace, replace.
The exchange makes sense because the value of mass-manufactured clothing is considerably less than the labor cost needed for repairs.
We don’t consider breathing new life into these sad garments by mending or patching, recycling or reusing.
Old and unwearable clothing was once used for rags, bandages or even paper. Now it’s disregarded: sent to charities, sold on e-Bay, thrown away to eventually wind up in a landfill somewhere.
We’re accustomed to this convenience. We make purchases that are immediate and disposable from places that are created to serve this very purpose. We want stuff that’s of-the-moment, of style, savvily crafting a look that fits snugly within a familiar cultural device of choice.
There are so many downsides to the mass-manufacturing of clothes. Beyond the huge issue of labor ethics, synthetic clothing is manufactured with the use of petrochemicals. Petrochemicals don’t biodegrade like natural fibers do. The garment pretty much lasts forever, and not in the good way.
Maybe it’s time to be more conscious of where our stuff comes from and who’s creating it. Awareness can yield positive results as we discover items of a higher quality, leading us to engage with nostalgic inclinations to reuse, recycle, and repeat.
I think it would be great if we could revisit the lost art of a seamstress or the work of a really amazing tailor. Clothing fits better and lasts longer, ultimately giving us a better deal in the long run.
Plus, it’s a piece of history! A well-made product that not only tells a story but will – hopefully – stand the test of time.
More:
This post was inspired by Animal Traffic and House of Vintage in Portland, OR. It was also inspired by @SocialMediate.
Did you like this article? Want more? Don’t forget to post your thoughts and feedback in the comments section!
Part 7: The Messages We Receive
Jul 16th
Imagine if each message in your inbox was an actual letter. Imagine, opening each letter and reading the pages every morning, during the course of the day – filing away some, sending on others.
How many of us get hundreds of e-mails a day? Can you imagine sorting through some one-hundred odd letters every day and night? No wonder we get bogged down.
The other evening I found myself perusing various feeds in Google reader. I also had two email programs open (work and personal). I was running iChat, Yahoo IM, G-mail chat, and Tweetie. Oh, and I was texting from my iPhone.
This common situation is infinite, part of a lifestyle that defines the ultimate interactive experience – the one we speculated about years ago while learning Microsoft Front Page and building interactive CD-ROM’s.
The baseline 1′s and 0′s of a 2-dimensional social destiny in the making.
Here within the Digital Age, the way we read is changing. We absorb information from various mediums creating a non-linear path of focus. Perhaps due to the multitude of interactive media available to us, we’re brief in how we consume content. We sample and browse, allowing the inevitable multi-tasking to occur.
It can be said that cumulatively, we’re actually reading more than ever.
So I’m wondering – does this new process, this newly adapted way of working through multitasking – affect the quality of our interpersonal communications? And what are the long-term effects of this?
Do we communicate in shorter amounts – but with more folks, in higher frequencies?
The interactive experience is rich. We have the real-time aspect of Twitter, the private element of chat. The social aspect of Facebook. Time delayed emails, character counts, garbled texts sent on-the-go.
It’s easier to reach folks more than ever. But is it confusing? Is it too much? Or is being networked 24/7 merely a lesson in brevity?
On a business level, this may not be a bad thing. We can cut to the chase.
But what about on a personal level? Where in time and space does all of this communication add up?
I wonder if it makes our relationships fluid and transparent – like with the prevalence of social networking we have the ability to see everyone’s business. Or, if it creates more obstacles through illusions of what we choose to share.
And, how can we get to know someone if we never slow down?
Maybe we need to slow down in general and become more present when we multi-task. We can take the time to stop and chat with someone in person. We can stop needle dropping and enjoy an entire song or album. We can put 5 more minutes into that email.
Maybe we need to appreciate…Life. Or we may wake up one day with nothing but a bunch of intangible 1′s and 0′s.
Reads:
Yes, People Still Read, but Now It’s Social – http://nyti.ms/c1P81A
A Rant on Accessibility, Part 2: Gimme Gimme
Jun 25th
Music Technology is slowly changing. It’s adopting to consumer needs by giving music fans access to music anytime, almost anywhere, from anyplace.
New models like Rdio and Spotify allow us to search and listen for pretty much anything as long as there’s a solid network connection + computer or smart phone. We can easily create playlists and share them with friends. We can discover new music and in the case of Spotify, collaborate on dynamic playlists and create artist or decade-centric radio stations.
Old models like Rhapsody work like a storefront while granting us access to music in exchange for a monthly subscription fee. This model, although advanced at the time, still doesn’t allow us to see other users’ playlists or collaborate in an interactive way.
MOG is a strong contender in the marriage of content with editorial. With a firehose of musical content coming at us constantly, it’s nice to have direction from tastemakers to learn about what’s worth checking out.
Most notably, portability has become a reality with the development of apps for the smart phone. On the open-source Android platform, music specific apps like iMusic and Chompin make listening to music on the go a breeze – and are possibly the cleverest of the new breed.
Both apps aggregate music from blogs rather than hosting the content locally.
iMusic snags it’s musical database from what users are already listening to, similar to how Last.fm agreggates possibly one of the largest collections of music metadata on the internet simply by leveraging the data provided by its users.
By aggregating music from blogs, both services eschew potential legalities of making music available that hasn’t been officially released to the marketplace yet. It also broadens search.
Crawling blogs makes the odds of finding the exact track one is looking for – a b-side, remix, or live version – much greater.
This is particularly important because music fans take pride in discovering something new and/or exclusive. We invest our time in these sites. It’s disappointing when we can’t get access to music we know is out there. We can’t play DJ, or personalize playlists on your site as much as we’d like to.
What iMusic and Chompin are doing is brilliant, not only because it makes the user experience better – but it’s also indicative of a newer and perhaps broader way of purchasing music.
Labels are still hesitant to leave content in the hands of consumers. Sure, we download illegal promos, search for torrents of leaked albums, and unflinchingly pass along un-licensed mixtapes. But in truth this isn’t a bad thing.
Here’s why: music fans do it feverishly. They do it with a passion. They chomp at the proverbial bit for these leaks.
We want to be tastemakers. We’re eager to be the first to tell our friends about something new. And when we like it, we’re telling everyone we know. Hyperdistribution, anyone? Even according to the old business model, this remains the single best way to acquire a superfan.
If a record has stickiness, it can be released into the wild and it WILL be noticed.
It might not be picked up on the traditional charts but you’ll see it on Hype Machine. It’ll appear on We Are Hunted. You’ll see friends dedicate singles to one another and watch viral videos over and over again. Let these users decide what they like. Give them access to everything, and keep an eye on the numbers. If the music is good and the marketing power behind the band is smart enough – the revenue will follow.
The concept of music ownership is affected by the aforementioned technologies anyway. Why would I want to tend to my un-wieldy music collection when I can queue up a playlist in the cloud?
To be clear, ownership is not going away. It’s simply changing.
If I can listen to a full, lo-fi version of a amazing record on repeat – for free – I’ll gladly shell out my hard-earned moolah for hi-res WAV files.
I’ll buy a ticket to the show when the band comes to town. If I’m in love with a particular record (which tends to happen every week with die-hard music fanatics), I’ll see them again and again. I’ll be inclined to purchase vinyl or limited-edition items like prints and other merch.
Make music more accessible – and let the fans decide.
If it’s good enough, they’ll tell their friends. And buy concert tickets. And a hi-res copy of the album. And subscribe to the fan club.
And so on, and so on.
related:
Part 6: Breaking up is Hard to Do
Apr 5th
image via http://www.thefbomb.org
Remember back in the day when we needed to get over someone, we could totally try to pretend that the other person no longer existed?
With the exception of bumping into that person in the street, or at social events thrown by friends left neutral post-split, there was virtually no mental residue of needing to know that person’s current affairs.
Enter the era of social networks, blogs, and status updates – where it’s all out there for the world to see. The ultimate blow of having the magical ability to follow said person’s self-elected dirty-laundry.
I say “this person” because, well, as it pertains to my life specifically this person is not what society would necessarily deem to be an “Ex”. He’s a person who was (circumstantially) important to me, and simply needent be any longer.
I choose to think it’s as simple as that (Stage 1: Denial).
At that point in our whatever-it-was, the wires of communication had become totally tangled. I needed to get over it but there he was online and everywhere.
In an effort to distance myself – and do some detangling – I blocked him on IM (ow). I un-followed him on Twitter (double ow!). I removed him from my feed on Facebook (no one needs to know). I haven’t actually de-friended him on Facebook. After consulting friends about FB rules, everyone considered the maneuver – although strategic – to be pretty harsh.
Did it help?
Well, sorta. Obviously the curiousity takes time to fade. And old habits die hard. I think what happens is, in time, the other person wonders where you went and they reach out to you. And that’s probably the kind of person you’d want to be with in the first place – and so the universe somehow righted itself.
Part 5: Getting to Know You
Feb 21st
The other night was quite windy in here Santa Monica. It was 4am and I was wide awake and totally spooked. I randomly posted how I was feeling to Twitter and noticed shortly thereafter that other west-siders were awake and acknowledging that they felt the same way.
This exchange comforted me somehow. It made me feel less neurotic about being freaked out by something so simple as wind.
It’s scary to think that everything I post is on record somewhere, but to participate I realize – like in a real world relationship – that it helps to open up.
I noticed that after posting more opinionated tweets or describing certain situations that my number of followers dramatically increased. Offering up stuff I was working on, like DJ mixes, helped too.
Make the experience personal and memorable and people will follow.
Just like the real world, the Twitterverse is full of amazing individuals who love to share their creations, thoughts and opinions.
Get to know your tweeples. Send them messages, read their blogs. You’ll become flattered by the types of people who follow you, and become inspired to offer more. It makes participation more meaningful than communicating aimlessly in an anonymous online world.
Part 4: We’re the Best of Friends
Nov 15th
A few weeks ago I had an interesting conversation amongst friends in the dark corner of a Chinatown Bar.
Of all things one could discuss on a Saturday night at 1a.m. we got to chatting about, well, chatting. Specifically, on voicemail, e-mail, IM, SMS, FB and Twitter.
Leave it to the nerds.
As biggest nerd ever, I thought more about this over the course of the next few days.
While the aforementioned mediums make it easier to communicate, while we participate we’re sacrificing the human experience and encouraging alienation from others.
My friends know that I generally dislike voicemail. It’s rare that I leave them and admittedly barely listen to them.
They’re like an awkwardly scripted one-way time capsule from the past. Why not leave the same message in real time – circa now?
In 1995 I signed up for my first email address. In the interest of self-disclosure for the sake of this story I (gulp) became semi-addicted to AOL chat rooms.
This was back in the day when we were all on dial-up – and paid for internet by the hour.
Like most people, I was beyond intrigued with the notion of chatting in real time with anyone from anywhere in the world. For a angst-ridden teenage girl growing up in the midwestern suburbs it was my portal.
Ironically enough, I quickly became friends with someone who happened to live nearby. We immediately bonded over our mutual obsession of music, media, the arts, and local underground parties (ok fine, “raves”).
There were no rules. We’d chat anytime of day or night when both of us happened to be online. There was no limit to the range of topics we’d discuss.
Over time, our lives became closer and he felt like a real friend.
One year we briefly met in person by total accident. We chatted for a few awkward moments until my friend pulled me away. “Who is that guy?” She asked.
She didn’t even have an e-mail address at that point so maybe she wouldn’t understand…or would she? I tried to explain.
“Ok, anyway…”, she replied. “Wanna get some frozen yogurt?”
When I moved away to college our friendship continued.
He’d give me feedback on various art projects and tips for acclimating to a newly vegan diet. I’d give him girl advice and let him know what I thought of his latest remix. We’d crack jokes, share URLs and pontificate the meaning of life years later as I procrastinated writing those 30 page papers in grad school.
He moved to Los Angeles, I moved to Boston.
We became friends on MySpace, then Friendster, then Facebook.
I moved to Los Angeles.
We slowly became friends In Real Life. Bonded by our mutual common interests, I’ve found myself on more than one occasion chatting with him poolside at the Roosevelt Hotel or under the skylights at LA hotspot Bardot.
My male companions give him the hairy eye wondering who the dude is I’m chatting conspiratorially alongside.
15 years later, we still communicate on IM. Now, we also communicate via SMS and e-mail too.
And sometimes, we’ll even drop the other a Voicemail.
Are our lives intertwined? Somewhat.
Will we ever connect on a deep and meaningful level? Probably not.
As part of different spheres, our interests overlap on a social level only.
Yet for someone I’ve hung out with for maybe an hour total in person, he probably knows more about me than anyone.
Communicating on IM can build a form of friendship. We’re missing the part that hanging in person brings – the adventures, atmosphere, lingering conversations, observations, body language. These things bring meaning to a surface-level friendship and make it come alive.
Can a real friendship be fostered online then, when all we have is type?
Leave your comments by clicking on “comments” at the top of this post.
Part 3: A Snapshot in Time (the past is inescapable)
Sep 30th
The city’s asleep and I’m aimlessly noodling around the bungalow. I’m tired. I need sleep but my mind is reeling. I’m feeling placeless, lost in space and time.
I notice a few dusty photo albums on the shelf that haven’t been opened since before they were unpacked nearly a year and a half ago. I pull them down and begin perusing the contents of mostly old photos from senior year of college.
Real celluloid photos – remember those?
Hmm, most were taken at social events and all prominently acknowledge the subject matter. It’s almost as if we were hyperaware of presenting ourselves within a certain context for those who would see that photo in the future.
Me with my little outfit and makeup on. Posing just “so”.
Say “cheeese”!
Who was I then? There are so many memories buried deep in the back of my brain of the best laughs and the biggest heartbreaks. It’s like those memories don’t even exist now. Where does all that stuff live? Where is that reality? Did it all go away?
Certainly not within the context of these photos.
Maybe a picture isn’t worth a thousand words.
Online, we document more. We can create a daily stream of data detailing where we are, what we’re into, how we’re feeling – and this stuff lives on over time. Contextually, it can be considered to be deeper documentation, like a diary of sorts.
The big question is, Is this the Truth?
A different so-called snapshot of ourselves that is real and for the world to acknowledge.
Or is it a forgery too?
Sometimes one of the most difficult things about growing into who one is meant to be as a person is not letting go or forgetting the past but remembering it and embracing it for what it was.
When old friends, classmates, and even neighbors first surfaced on Facebook I was somewhat remiss in acknowledging the possibility that these relationships might be rekindled, or shared experiences relived.
Sometimes I think about that when I’m leaving a status update. Who’s going to see this? How will they think of me?
We can vet our online presence to our little heart’s content, but at the end of the day, it is a snapshot of you.
Now.
However you choose to take it.
What Facebook taught me about learning to say NO
Aug 16th
I could be a better decision maker. There, I’ve said it. Not that I’m totally indecisive or stubborn, but sometimes I just have a hard time prioritizing. I’m the type who used to say yes to almost anything – I blame the Second City improv training that taught us the concept of “yes…and”.
If you asked me to see a band play, I’d say yes even if I secretly thought the band was crap. If you asked me to meet you for an after work drink, I’d say yes then later realize it’s logistically impossible to do so. Triple booking on a Thursday night left it impossible to attend all events in question.
I had earned a bit of a reputation of what my mom likes to call a “flibbergibbit”. Maybe it’s a fear of commitment – I’m not sure, but I’ve gotten much better.
Facebook makes me face these issues head-on to a degree. Are you actually attending this event? Are you friends with this person? Simply put: Yes, or NO?
And of course there’s a loophole for events: the option of saying …”maybe”. What do all of those maybes mean anyway? Do we really mean “I’ll think about it and actually consider attending your event?” or are we just being polite?
My friend Jeff sees it all on my FB feed. “Are you really going to all of these events?” He asks. I told him the truth – mostly, I will. Mostly.
Friend requests are easier. Either I know you, or I don’t. Velvet rope. Easy. Done. Decision made.
At first it was hard to kibosh friend requests – aw this person wants to be my FRIEND! How sweet. I learned fast as the friendship almost immediately turns irritating when my news feed becomes cluttered with random musings from a total stranger.
Groups are an easy one because most of the time you’ll never hear from them again. Pages are trickier because they’ll also show up in your feed and do I really want everyone to know that I’m secretly a fan of Weinerschnitzel? (speaking hypothetically here. The truism for me would be more like, hypo-allergenic vegan non-soy based vegetable protein).
MySpace was a mad race to connect to everything and everyone. With that lesson learned, FB has taught us to be more selective. This forces us to make decisions about who and what we want to include in our (online) life – or more importantly, let everyone know we care about.I’m the type who used to say yes to almost anything – I blame the Second City improv training that taught us the concept of “yes…and”.
I used to be the type who was agreeable to attending almost anything – I blame the Second City improv training that brought us the concept of “yes…and”.
If you asked me to see a band play, I’d say yes even if I secretly thought the band was crap. If you asked me to meet you for an after work drink, I’d say yes then later realize it’s logistically impossible to do so.
Triple booking on a Thursday night left it impossible to attend all events in question.
I had earned a bit of a reputation of what my mom likes to call a “flibbergibbit”. Maybe it’s a fear of commitment – I’m not sure, but I’ve gotten much better.
Facebook makes me face these issues head-on to a degree. Are you actually attending this event? Are you friends with this person?
Simply put: Yes, or NO?
And of course there’s a loophole for events: the option of saying …”maybe”. What do all of those maybes mean anyway?
Do we really mean “I’ll think about it and actually consider attending your event?” or are we just being polite?
My friend Jeff sees it all on my FB feed. “Are you really going to all of these events?” He asks. I told him the truth – mostly, I will.
Mostly.
Friend requests are easier. Either I know you, or I don’t.
Velvet rope. Easy. Decision made.
At first it was hard to kibosh friend requests – aw, this person wants to be my FRIEND! How sweet.
I learned fast when the new friendship almost immediately turns sour, when my news feed quickly becomes cluttered with random musings from a total stranger.
Groups are an easy one to moderate because once you join, you can control how often you’d like to hear from the group.
Pages are trickier because they’ll also show up in your feed and do I really want everyone to know that I’m secretly a fan of Wienerschnitzel? (speaking hypothetically here. The truism for me would be more like, hypo-allergenic vegan non-soy based vegetable protein).
MySpace was a mad race to connect to everything and everyone. With that lesson learned, FB has taught us to be more selective. This forces us to make decisions about who and what we want to include in our (online) life – and how that can apply to decisions we make every day.
Media for Everyone
Aug 3rd
Some say the decentralized nature of online communities creates an environment conducive to so-called socialist behavior. I wouldn’t say these tenets are examples of a new socialism* by any means. I think the medium contains too many overarching constituents to take into consideration before assigning it any sociological value.
Given my own experience with online communities I’d lean towards more of a populist approach* – and I also wonder:
Are there any underlying marxist elements at play when we think about how content is consumed?
Rapid technological advancement leads to costly hardware from iPhones, to gaming consoles, to media storage. On top of that, monthly bandwidth and data plans are required to make those things work.
Comcast employs a tier-based system of pricing models for various downstream and upstream bitrates. It’s recommended to have at least have a 1.5MB pull to watch video, a step or two above the most basic monthly package.
This ultimately leads to a pyramid of who can afford what. Are we leaving out those who have limited to no accessibility?
If so, how large will the rift be between the informed and uninformed?
In the print editon of July’s Wired, President Obama’s newly appointed CIO Vivek Kundra references online communities as the new public square where people will discuss government info soon to be released online.
He says that “...by democratizing data, the American people will be able to hold their government accountable, based on evidence rather than talk.”
This is great and the internet does act as a public forum – but only for those who know how to use it. Will this create an elitist class of those who have means to access this information?
We live and work more efficiently than we did 5 years ago. We have the ability to get more done while constantly staying connected to each other and the rest of the world. In this seemingly decentralized and transparent public sphere we can stream documentaries for free under public domain, read about issues that affect us at the local and global level and then participate. We can even download a free weekly video update from our President.
Information we choose to receive is free and widely distributed. However hi-bandwidth is required to download podcasts, stream video, and move quickly from window to window. We need speedy hard drives and vast amounts of storage space with software that frequently needs to be updated. Not to mention the occasional tech support.
Will those who don’t have these things be left in the dark?
In an emergency, would people with the pricey smart phone have an advantage in avoiding a crisis situation?
If I were part of a Union and there’s activity happening online whereby I can participate in issues that matter to me, firstly I would want to know where to find about it. Secondly, I’d be inclined to participate.
Who are the technological evangelists empowering people of all classes to leverage the internet to their benefit?
The Media Access Project (MAP), Public Knowledge groups are just two of the public interest groups fighting for issues like the expansion of broadband, open access and net neutrality. The Center for Social Media encourages the promotion of a dynamic and engaged public through social media. There are many similar organizations out there (see links to a few below).
Maybe before taking on the herculean task of making government documents public, we should take additional steps to set up programs for public access and consumption.
Content-holders should be encouraged to offer lower bitrated streams of their media. Cities should create a rock-solid plan for municipal wi-fi. Community colleges can offer free classes showing people how to navigate RSS feeds and publish online. We need to leverage new media to somehow to become a voice for all, rather than a privileged novelty for some.
More:
http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org
http://www.publicknowledge.org
http://www.media-democracy.net
http://www.democraticmedia.org
http://www.wired.com/culture/culturereviews/magazine/17-06/nep_newsocialism
http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/magazine/17-07/mf_cio
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivek_Kundra
*-
http://www.nicolecifani.com/2008/10/hacking-the-debate/
Trackback for Facebook readers: http://www.nicolecifani.com/2009/08/media-for-everyone
The Media Access Project (MAP) and Public Knowledge group are just two of the public interest groups fighting for issues like the expansion of broadband, open access and net neutrality. The Center for Social Media encourages the promotion of a dynamic and engaged public through social media. There are many similar organizations out there (see links below).
Maybe before taking on the herculean task of making government documents public, we should take additional steps to set up programs for public access.
Content-holders should be encouraged to offer lower bitrated streams of their media. Cities should create a rock-solid plan for municipal wi-fi. Community colleges can offer free classes showing people how to navigate RSS feeds and publish online. We need to leverage new media to somehow to become a voice for all, rather than a privileged novelty for some.
More:
http://www.mediaaccess.org/
http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org
http://www.publicknowledge.org/
http://freeculture.org/
http://www.media-democracy.net/
http://www.democraticmedia.org/
http://www.freepress.net/
http://www.wired.com/culture/culturereviews/magazine/17-06/nep_newsocialism
http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/magazine/17-07/mf_cio
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivek_Kundra
*-
http://www.nicolecifani.com/2008/11/twitter-facebook-and-fox-news-oh-my-or-how-i-was-seduced-by-the-internet-on-election-night/
http://www.nicolecifani.com/2008/10/hacking-the-debate/
Part 2: Finding Love in the Social Cloud
Jul 14th
My girlfriend Leila is seeing two guys. The first has zero presence online. No profile on a company website, no Facebook page, no Flickr feed of his latest holiday or comments he’s left on blogs dissecting political stance. He’s a young attorney and “doesn’t have the time”. In fact, according to Leila he’s even elusive on e-mail. She can’t find any information on him at all (c’mon, you know you Google your prospective dates too!).
They primarily communicate by speaking over the phone a couple of times a week (yes he does have a RAZR) and they see each other once, sometimes twice weekly.
The second guy she’s dating is totally plugged in. He’s on Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, Myspace, Vimeo, Digg, you name it.
They communicate several times a day via iChat, SMS/MMS text, and e-mail. Thanks to Twitter she always knows what he’s up to. Is he seeing anyone else? Who needs a magic 8 ball – ask Twitter!
Interestingly enough, although she communicates much less with guy #1 she feels closer to him.
While communication with guy #2 is consistently frequent it feels superficial to her because she doesn’t have his undivided attention. Oh, and it doesn’t help that she rarely sees him in person.
Guy #1, while she sees him on a regular basis, has more to talk about IRL (in real life). She also has no pre-conceived thoughts about him that she’s garnered from digging up dirt online; no assumptions as to who he may be as a person. She’s gotta find this all out on her own.
If we communicate more frequently with someone thru different mediums does it necessarily promote a healthy relationship? it doesn’t appear that we’re getting to know a person on a truly deeper level, maybe even at all. With so many of life’s distractions online and in real life, is communicating with anyone on a meaningful level even possible? Have we become all “action” and no “talk”?
A relationship of any kind is meant to be rewarding. Each party wants validation from the other. In a narcissistic world where most online profiles are carefully self-groomed for vanity, the concept of nurturing any kind of relationship becomes a hall of mirrors where each friend appears just like the next.
Maybe the relationships of the future will revert to old-school techniques and mannerisms – like sitting down in person and having a conversation. Even then the smoke and mirrors ambiance of a dimly lit restaurant, music, and people-watching exist. Perhaps just having the opportunity alone to get to know someone – who they really are, not just online and via mass-emails – is what creates meaningful relationships in the 21st century.
My friend Leila is seeing two guys. I say, good for her! It’s interesting because she communicates with each of them in two totally different ways.
The first has absolutely zero presence online. No profile on a company website, no Facebook page, no Flickr feed of his latest holiday or comments left on blogs for her to dissect. He’s a young attorney and “doesn’t have the time”. In fact, according to Leila he’s even elusive on e-mail. Basically she can’t find any dish on him at all (c’mon, you know you Google your dates too!).
They primarily communicate by speaking over the phone a couple of times a week (yes he does have a RAZR) and they see each other a couple of times weekly.
The second guy she’s dating is totally plugged in. He’s on Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, Myspace, Vimeo, Digg, you name it.
They communicate several times a day via iChat, SMS/MMS text, and e-mail. They’re “friends” on Facebook. And, thanks to Twitter she always knows what he’s up to. Is he seeing anyone else? Who needs a magic 8 ball – ask Twitter!
Interestingly enough, although she communicates much less with guy #1 she feels closer to him.
While communication with guy #2 is consistently frequent it feels superficial because she doesn’t have his undivided attention. Oh, and it doesn’t help that she rarely sees him in person.
Guy #1, while she sees him on a regular basis, has more to talk about with IRL (In Real Life…hah). She also has no pre-conceived thoughts about him that she’s garnered herself from digging up dirt online; no assumptions as to who he may be as a person. She’s gotta find this all out on her own.
If we communicate more frequently with someone thru different mediums does it necessarily promote a healthy relationship? it doesn’t appear that we’re getting to know a person on a truly deeper level, maybe even at all. With so many of life’s distractions online and in real life, is communicating with anyone on a meaningful level even possible? Have we become all “action” and no “talk”?
A relationship of any kind is meant to be rewarding. Each party wants validation from the other. In a narcissistic world where most online profiles are carefully self-groomed for vanity, the concept of nurturing any kind of relationship becomes a hall of mirrors where each friend appears just like the next.
Maybe the relationships of the future will revert to old-school techniques and mannerisms – like sitting down in person and having a conversation. Even then the smoke and mirrors ambiance of a dimly lit restaurant, music, and people-watching exist. Perhaps just having the opportunity alone to get to know someone – who they really are, not just online and via mass-emails – is what creates a meaningful relationship.
What do you think? Leave your thoughts by clicking on the comments field at the top of this post.
