What do you think?
Rate this book
The Social Photo: On Photography and Social Media
"Mr. Jurgenson makes a first sortie toward a new understanding of the photograph, wherein artistry or documentary intent have given way to communication and circulation. Like Susan Sontag’s On Photography , to which it self-consciously responds, The Social Photo is slim, hard-bitten and picture-free." – New York Times
A set of bold theoretical reflections on how the social photo has remade our world.
With the rise of the smart phone and social media, cameras have become ubiquitous, infiltrating nearly every aspect of social life. The glowing camera screen is the lens through which many of us seek to communicate our experience. But our thinking about photography has been slow to catch-up; this major fixture of everyday life is still often treated in the terms of art or journalism.
In The Social Photo , social theorist Nathan Jurgenson develops bold new ways of understanding photography in the age of social media and the new kinds of images that have the selfie, the faux-vintage photo, the self-destructing image, the food photo. Jurgenson shows how these devices and platforms have remade the world and our understanding of ourselves within it.
A set of bold theoretical reflections on how the social photo has remade our world.
With the rise of the smart phone and social media, cameras have become ubiquitous, infiltrating nearly every aspect of social life. The glowing camera screen is the lens through which many of us seek to communicate our experience. But our thinking about photography has been slow to catch-up; this major fixture of everyday life is still often treated in the terms of art or journalism.
In The Social Photo , social theorist Nathan Jurgenson develops bold new ways of understanding photography in the age of social media and the new kinds of images that have the selfie, the faux-vintage photo, the self-destructing image, the food photo. Jurgenson shows how these devices and platforms have remade the world and our understanding of ourselves within it.
144 pages, Hardcover
First published April 30, 2019
81 people are currently reading
1276 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 68 reviews
July 3, 2020
This book is the intellectual pre-cum baby of a slightly precocious, slightly well-educated, twenty-something year old white boy who made a Snapchat in 2013 while smoking mid and got to thinking he’s founding some groundbreaking new profundity about, like, society, man.
Granted, some select points were good, but whatever rhetorical adroitness they could‘ve otherwise carried is immediately washed out between all the dullard, pseudo-contrarian aphorisms surrounding them.
The whole anti-“disconnectionism” overlay doesn’t substantively engage with the ideological position it aims to refute, which is the underlying instinctual social drive toward self-aware/self-congratulatory internet austerity to begin with, so the whole thing sounds like whiny invective furled at self-discipline at large.
Also -
although Jurgenson himself admits the euphemistic cultural “specificity” of his argument, it’s hard to exaggerate just how obtusely relativistic it is to pretty much the rest of the world: what the social photo means in this book is literally only applicable within the borders of the chest-beating U.S.A..
But, he can’t be faulted for that, of course.
This altogether - along with the literally compulsive intellectual name-drops every other sentence (the giveaway trademark of all slightly smart, slightly dumb twenty-something year old guys) - makes this an unintentional primary document of its originally intended subject-matter: the contours of the ongoing epochal transition in modern social theory, post-social media.
Granted, some select points were good, but whatever rhetorical adroitness they could‘ve otherwise carried is immediately washed out between all the dullard, pseudo-contrarian aphorisms surrounding them.
The whole anti-“disconnectionism” overlay doesn’t substantively engage with the ideological position it aims to refute, which is the underlying instinctual social drive toward self-aware/self-congratulatory internet austerity to begin with, so the whole thing sounds like whiny invective furled at self-discipline at large.
Also -
although Jurgenson himself admits the euphemistic cultural “specificity” of his argument, it’s hard to exaggerate just how obtusely relativistic it is to pretty much the rest of the world: what the social photo means in this book is literally only applicable within the borders of the chest-beating U.S.A..
But, he can’t be faulted for that, of course.
This altogether - along with the literally compulsive intellectual name-drops every other sentence (the giveaway trademark of all slightly smart, slightly dumb twenty-something year old guys) - makes this an unintentional primary document of its originally intended subject-matter: the contours of the ongoing epochal transition in modern social theory, post-social media.
February 25, 2021
An interesting book, but one that is wise and stupid in equal degrees. It is a book that keeps the mind arguing-- though Jurgenson's argument is frequently frustrating.
Towards the centre of the book, he acknowledges that smartphones are "dangerous" in the desires that they create, yet mitigates this by saying people might have a "minor personal obsession." I would not use the word "minor" for the addiction that influences many of my younger friends. Around a few warnings, he constructs a thesis that is pro-social media.
His argument wanders: yes, we all live in a space where the physical and the virtual intertwine and it is impossible to unfasten ourselves and simply detox as anti-mobile phone groups prescribe. It is true that relationships stretch across the net and though these are virtual they still are vital. We now have friends that we may have never met yet they contribute to our lives. Typically, however, Jurgenson stops short when he sees a counterpoint coming, in this case: the friends we have on the net are modelled on friendships that have existed in the physical world for decades. This is very different from the smartphone generation that pursues virtual friends without firm flesh to flesh experiences.
Hybridity is rich when two worlds are balanced equally. But ultimately, what has this to do with the social photo? Accepting that human lives cannot be separated from the world wide web is not the same as saying human lives cannot be separated from social media and the social photo.
Jurgenson is quick to debunk the psychological findings of Sherry Turkle and her concerns over the decrease in social communication among young people. Rather than engage with her findings, he just ignores them. This is typical of the lack of rigour in his arguments. He does point out (by way of Foucault) that detoxifying a problem is only worthwhile if it can be countered with a healthy antidote.
Jurgenson does not see an antidote, so the best course is to accept that mixing of the virtual and the real and see this as the correct state of existence. Here is a simple counterpoint: the chemicals that are produced by nature, which detoxify the human body, are not available by virtual prescription! Our state of being is not fed and sustained by IG feeds alone.
One very important point that he makes is the following: previous centuries saw social MEDIA and emphasis fell on quality; the new century sees SOCIAL media and the emphasis is placed on quantity and social connection. Jurgenson believes that social imagery should not be judged in terms of quality and art because that is not its function: its function is to connect by visual literacy. That is an interesting term, one that reflects the reductive education policies that the UK put in place whereby young people were taught the basics. And that is the new god that Jurgenson has come to worhip-- a basic form of ritual behaviour in which young people can pose and build a basic self. Yawn. This is what Davies has studied acutely in Nervous States, a move away from expertise and depth of knowledge towards emotion and superficiality. Personally, I believe that visual literature/Art matters as this training allows moral judgements to be made. Jurgenson treads lightly over sexting. He is quick to quote Barthes when it suits him, but has next to nothing to say about the pornographic images (the unitary photographs as Barthes termed them) that proliferate over Instagram. He chucks in a smattering of performance terms when discussing the self but his argument would be a lot better if he actually knew something about the creation of character and drama theory.
The fundamental weakness of this book is its method. Jurgenson writes like most of the technological gurus. He makes a point and supports it by a list of names and brief quotations as if complex theories all mean the same thing and are just a set of memes to be stood side by side. Argument by emoji. He writes in the same way that Instagram works: the mind is bombarded by quotes and names until it is beaten into submission by the amount of visual data and starts to accept that the high sounding language means something. And here is the ultimate paradox. He believes there is value in a social media, as he puts it, that pushes low sounding language, the language of connection, yet his own style is the high sounding language of academia. It does not seem that he actually wants to live the language or the social media lifestyle that he espouses for millions of other young people.
Towards the centre of the book, he acknowledges that smartphones are "dangerous" in the desires that they create, yet mitigates this by saying people might have a "minor personal obsession." I would not use the word "minor" for the addiction that influences many of my younger friends. Around a few warnings, he constructs a thesis that is pro-social media.
His argument wanders: yes, we all live in a space where the physical and the virtual intertwine and it is impossible to unfasten ourselves and simply detox as anti-mobile phone groups prescribe. It is true that relationships stretch across the net and though these are virtual they still are vital. We now have friends that we may have never met yet they contribute to our lives. Typically, however, Jurgenson stops short when he sees a counterpoint coming, in this case: the friends we have on the net are modelled on friendships that have existed in the physical world for decades. This is very different from the smartphone generation that pursues virtual friends without firm flesh to flesh experiences.
Hybridity is rich when two worlds are balanced equally. But ultimately, what has this to do with the social photo? Accepting that human lives cannot be separated from the world wide web is not the same as saying human lives cannot be separated from social media and the social photo.
Jurgenson is quick to debunk the psychological findings of Sherry Turkle and her concerns over the decrease in social communication among young people. Rather than engage with her findings, he just ignores them. This is typical of the lack of rigour in his arguments. He does point out (by way of Foucault) that detoxifying a problem is only worthwhile if it can be countered with a healthy antidote.
Jurgenson does not see an antidote, so the best course is to accept that mixing of the virtual and the real and see this as the correct state of existence. Here is a simple counterpoint: the chemicals that are produced by nature, which detoxify the human body, are not available by virtual prescription! Our state of being is not fed and sustained by IG feeds alone.
One very important point that he makes is the following: previous centuries saw social MEDIA and emphasis fell on quality; the new century sees SOCIAL media and the emphasis is placed on quantity and social connection. Jurgenson believes that social imagery should not be judged in terms of quality and art because that is not its function: its function is to connect by visual literacy. That is an interesting term, one that reflects the reductive education policies that the UK put in place whereby young people were taught the basics. And that is the new god that Jurgenson has come to worhip-- a basic form of ritual behaviour in which young people can pose and build a basic self. Yawn. This is what Davies has studied acutely in Nervous States, a move away from expertise and depth of knowledge towards emotion and superficiality. Personally, I believe that visual literature/Art matters as this training allows moral judgements to be made. Jurgenson treads lightly over sexting. He is quick to quote Barthes when it suits him, but has next to nothing to say about the pornographic images (the unitary photographs as Barthes termed them) that proliferate over Instagram. He chucks in a smattering of performance terms when discussing the self but his argument would be a lot better if he actually knew something about the creation of character and drama theory.
The fundamental weakness of this book is its method. Jurgenson writes like most of the technological gurus. He makes a point and supports it by a list of names and brief quotations as if complex theories all mean the same thing and are just a set of memes to be stood side by side. Argument by emoji. He writes in the same way that Instagram works: the mind is bombarded by quotes and names until it is beaten into submission by the amount of visual data and starts to accept that the high sounding language means something. And here is the ultimate paradox. He believes there is value in a social media, as he puts it, that pushes low sounding language, the language of connection, yet his own style is the high sounding language of academia. It does not seem that he actually wants to live the language or the social media lifestyle that he espouses for millions of other young people.
February 11, 2022
Autor wspomina w zakończeniu książki, że jej początkiem był esej na ten sam temat. Szkoda, że nie poprzestał na eseju czy krótkim artykule, bo ta garść sensownych przemyśleń trochę nie wystarcza na książkę. To, co w niej interesujące, zmieściłoby się na 20 stronach, a tak niestety mamy przeintelektualizowany bełkot, w którym po raz kolejny powtarzają się te same tezy. Co gorsze, autor chyba bardzo chciał zaimponować czytelnikom swoim oczytaniem - co stronę właściwie mamy cytat: z Foucalta, z Sontag, tu jakiś znany filozof, tu ważny fotograf, a tu co ktoś napisał w swoim eseju…tak, rozumiemy, znasz dużo ważnych nazwisk. Gubi się w tym jakakolwiek własna myśl autora, bo wciąż tylko nawiązuje do czegoś, co przeczytał, a niemal nie ma tam myśli niezależnych. Jest to nużące, zbija z tropu, a gdy kończymy cytat, to znowu jest powtórzenie pierwotnej myśli - i tak w kółko.
February 26, 2022
As a 22-year-old sociology major/former #pnwwonderland Instagram photographer, I believe I may be the target audience for this book. While a lot of the criticism that this book has received is valid, I thought it was genuinely engaging and fun to read. If you're looking for a quick Sunday read that won't force you to re-read a two-page passage five times just to sort of understand it, The Social Photo is for you. Probably one of the best books I've read this year, and I'll recommend it to anyone over the age of 50 who can't quite wrap their head around why their gen z daughter is using a ten-year-old Nikon point and shoot to take y2k throwback pictures instead of the nice DSLR that they bought her for Christmas.
August 8, 2019
As with 'How to Do Nothing,' this is a fascinating topic that I'm super interested in, but it seemed expanded from previous tweets/talks/articles and as a result had some filler. That wasn't my main gripe with it, though: it was really, really academic for a book that's, in theory, for a more general audience, and had really snobby, superfluous language and constant namedropping of people like Susan Sontag and Theodor Adorno without initially explaining what their ideas were. I felt like I was reading someone's PhD thesis.
This also might have been me more than the author, but I found the book really disorganized and hard to follow a single thesis.
This also might have been me more than the author, but I found the book really disorganized and hard to follow a single thesis.
January 24, 2024
Z jednej strony książka ta zawierała kilka ciekawych spostrzeżeń oraz nosi znamiona odpowiadającego mi delikatnego nonkonformizmu. Z drugiej jednak wydawała się być okrutnie przegadana, mając problem z wygenerowaniem jakiejś spójnej tezy. Jednym z celów "Fotki" jest przekonanie czytelnika, iż fotografię obecną w mediach społecznościowych należy postrzegać bardziej jako substytut mowy, narracji czy ciągłego opowiadania, aniżeli pojedynczej formy wyrazu odczytywanej w kontekście artystycznym. Ponadto esej staje w obronie onlajnu w krytykując samozachwyt osób szczycących się swoją nieobecnością w mediach społecznościowych. Autor wskazuje, iż manifestacyjne ich odrzucenie wciąż dzieje się w relacji do nich. Ciekawa była też polemika Jurgensona z perspektywą, iż użytkownicy mediów społecznościowych tracą prywatność oraz łączność z rzeczywistością, popadając w alienację, brak autentyczności. Esej podkreśla, iż selfie jest de facto najbardziej realnym wyrazem naszego ja, więc jest najwierniejszą rzeczywistości dokumentacją siebie. Jednakże jednocześnie fotografia generalnie ma bardzo performatywny charakter. "Nie jestem tym, kim myślę, że jestem, i nie jestem tym, kim ty myślisz, że jestem. Jestem tym, kim myślę, że ty myślisz, że jestem." Przez samo ograniczenie kadru nie pokazuje wszystkiego, zostawiając spore pole do interpretacji. M. in. dzięki temu, według autora obecność w soszalach nie stanowi istotnego naruszenia prywatności. Istotnym problemem książki jest duża ilość cytatów i odwołań, które zdają się bardziej wskazywać na oczytanie eseisty aniżeli wnoszą cokolwiek istotnego do treści.
Książka wydana oryginalnie w 2019 roku, przez co zdaje się nie miała okazji ująć popularności TikToka, który wydaje się mocno dyskredytować argument z istotności zdjęcia w mediach społecznościowych. Dodatkowo w ostatnich latach pojawiła się nowa platforma - BeReal, której cały sens polega na ucieczce od maksymalnie pozowanych i stylizowanych zdjęć, których dominującą obecność Jurgenson zdaje się w swoim wywodzie ignorować. Chciałbym zobaczyć jak autor konfrontuje się z tym tematem dziś. Mam jednak wrażenie, że zastosowałby po prostu unik.
Książka wydana oryginalnie w 2019 roku, przez co zdaje się nie miała okazji ująć popularności TikToka, który wydaje się mocno dyskredytować argument z istotności zdjęcia w mediach społecznościowych. Dodatkowo w ostatnich latach pojawiła się nowa platforma - BeReal, której cały sens polega na ucieczce od maksymalnie pozowanych i stylizowanych zdjęć, których dominującą obecność Jurgenson zdaje się w swoim wywodzie ignorować. Chciałbym zobaczyć jak autor konfrontuje się z tym tematem dziś. Mam jednak wrażenie, że zastosowałby po prostu unik.
July 25, 2019
This started guns-a-blazing, with an interesting hypothesis on the idea of social photography, and the writing was relatively taut and the voice fresh. This part I enjoyed - very much.
But then, glut set in. This book is structured as two long-form "essays" on documentary vision and "real life" with a coda on "the social video" (which was so slight it arguably isn't worth reading so much as it functions as Jurgenson's nod to other forms of social media). Yet apart from their bifurcated separation, there are no real organizational markers, only the occasional block quotation from an interesting writer plopped down in the text without direct comment or structure put in place by Jurgenson. These guide the loose "sections" to come, but not observably. For example, here's a late section that begins with a quotation from John Berger's Another Way of Telling: "Positivism and the camera and sociology grew up together." Then, Jurgenson:
What? Okay, and to be fair the ensuing passage does take up positivism and sociology (think Public Sociology: From Social Facts to Literary Acts) obliquely, though the angle of big data, but what's the point of the Berger quotation preceding that passage? It's obfuscating at best, petulantly coquettish at worst.
Overall, the effect is one of infinite text, a kind of informational-slideby that is exacerabated by Jurgenson's hit-and-run use of quotations from the usual theoretical sources (think photography and contemporary Theory from Walter Benjamin to Judith Butler). The use of these citations grows as the text unspools, until the flow is a melange of other people's half-heard voices, a constellation of half-seen arguments that loosely relate to whatever point Jurgenson is trying to make, from the performativity of the self through technology (selfies, etc) to the ridiculousness of detox-culture.
Not that everything here is regrettable! There are many times that I chuckled and more that I appreciated. When he releases the pen of anxiety, Jurgenson has an eye for direct statements that release the tension of a misunderstood or overly-complex discussion. Of course, at times these fell back on argumentative tactics such as simplification or misunderstanding that he chastises others for (one section where Jurgenson is discussing how "too often, discussions about technology use are conducted in bad faith" seems itself to veer towards exactly the same stance), but it also means that, at his most readable, The Social Photo is direct and punchy in a kind of post-Theory Twitter voice that has all the luxury of an infinite character count.
At the end of the book, however, I remain unsure about how much of this hasn't been said before - an effect of citational fatigue - and yet still interested in the basic premises of Jurgenson's position on social photography and the mutational nature of images in data-laden social media. Worthwhile, in the end?
But then, glut set in. This book is structured as two long-form "essays" on documentary vision and "real life" with a coda on "the social video" (which was so slight it arguably isn't worth reading so much as it functions as Jurgenson's nod to other forms of social media). Yet apart from their bifurcated separation, there are no real organizational markers, only the occasional block quotation from an interesting writer plopped down in the text without direct comment or structure put in place by Jurgenson. These guide the loose "sections" to come, but not observably. For example, here's a late section that begins with a quotation from John Berger's Another Way of Telling: "Positivism and the camera and sociology grew up together." Then, Jurgenson:
Like the photograph, social media show a partial reality, presenting one slice from the infinite number of possibilities that could be produced from a scene. The tiny fragment of truth being shown unveils an infinite mystery. Compounded, multiplied in a stream of images, all this publicity reveals an abundance of privacy.
What? Okay, and to be fair the ensuing passage does take up positivism and sociology (think Public Sociology: From Social Facts to Literary Acts) obliquely, though the angle of big data, but what's the point of the Berger quotation preceding that passage? It's obfuscating at best, petulantly coquettish at worst.
Overall, the effect is one of infinite text, a kind of informational-slideby that is exacerabated by Jurgenson's hit-and-run use of quotations from the usual theoretical sources (think photography and contemporary Theory from Walter Benjamin to Judith Butler). The use of these citations grows as the text unspools, until the flow is a melange of other people's half-heard voices, a constellation of half-seen arguments that loosely relate to whatever point Jurgenson is trying to make, from the performativity of the self through technology (selfies, etc) to the ridiculousness of detox-culture.
Not that everything here is regrettable! There are many times that I chuckled and more that I appreciated. When he releases the pen of anxiety, Jurgenson has an eye for direct statements that release the tension of a misunderstood or overly-complex discussion. Of course, at times these fell back on argumentative tactics such as simplification or misunderstanding that he chastises others for (one section where Jurgenson is discussing how "too often, discussions about technology use are conducted in bad faith" seems itself to veer towards exactly the same stance), but it also means that, at his most readable, The Social Photo is direct and punchy in a kind of post-Theory Twitter voice that has all the luxury of an infinite character count.
At the end of the book, however, I remain unsure about how much of this hasn't been said before - an effect of citational fatigue - and yet still interested in the basic premises of Jurgenson's position on social photography and the mutational nature of images in data-laden social media. Worthwhile, in the end?
April 29, 2020
What a rambling thesis and unconvincing plea against digital dualism. A few interesting thoughts about street photography, social media and privacy toward the end of the second chapter. Otherwise a pretentious, much too assertive tone amidst a grab bag of citations.
July 5, 2021
I was so excited to start reading this book which at its beginning really pleased me. I loved how the author uses art historical references throughout the text, giving the under-researched topic a context it deserves + what I personally find interesting.
About one third into the book the author changes perspective, moving from a critical to a celebratory point of view. Some of stuff he mentions here is really, and I mean really interesting. He basically looks at social media as an extended arm of the real world, as a parallel sphere that is now part of how we construct ourselves to communicate with each other. Then the book ends? Nothing about mental health issues, morals of Facebook, internet trolls etc. I get it. A book obviously cannot cover everything but these issues aren’t even addressed.
The author trusts the medium a bit too well. Everyone knows social media isn’t giving the world a realistic image of the world but I think many people are effected by it anyway. The author seems to forget it isn’t a simple task to just “choose your thoughts”. I - at least at this point in time - haven’t yet seen a well established or thought through counter-action to the effects of social media, something that balances out that “social life is treated like a product, a commodity, something to be manufactured and shopped for as opposed to lived reality of social participation”. If I did, maybe I would have been more forgiving? By not addressing some of the obvious negative aspects of the medium, I basically think the author avoids crossing some paths that are unavoidable while writing about a topic like social media. As well, quotes are often misplaced throughout the book without any further explanation.
Anyway I gave it 4 stars as I found the topic mega interesting, a lot of thought provoking observations😌
About one third into the book the author changes perspective, moving from a critical to a celebratory point of view. Some of stuff he mentions here is really, and I mean really interesting. He basically looks at social media as an extended arm of the real world, as a parallel sphere that is now part of how we construct ourselves to communicate with each other. Then the book ends? Nothing about mental health issues, morals of Facebook, internet trolls etc. I get it. A book obviously cannot cover everything but these issues aren’t even addressed.
The author trusts the medium a bit too well. Everyone knows social media isn’t giving the world a realistic image of the world but I think many people are effected by it anyway. The author seems to forget it isn’t a simple task to just “choose your thoughts”. I - at least at this point in time - haven’t yet seen a well established or thought through counter-action to the effects of social media, something that balances out that “social life is treated like a product, a commodity, something to be manufactured and shopped for as opposed to lived reality of social participation”. If I did, maybe I would have been more forgiving? By not addressing some of the obvious negative aspects of the medium, I basically think the author avoids crossing some paths that are unavoidable while writing about a topic like social media. As well, quotes are often misplaced throughout the book without any further explanation.
Anyway I gave it 4 stars as I found the topic mega interesting, a lot of thought provoking observations😌
January 20, 2020
Venduto come un ‘Susan Sontag della selfie generation’, Jurgenson spiega questo: le immagini che condividiamo sui social abbiano più a che fare con la comunicazione che con la documentazione. Le foto online non sono più ‘miniature di realtà’, quindi, ma pezzetti del nostro continuo dialogare.
Ecco perché è concettualmente sbagliato criticare la ripetitività di certe foto (il tramonto, i piatti gourmet, ecc.) e usare canoni artistici della fotografia classica per valutarla. Il senso non è documentare, né archiviare ricordi: è parlare l’uno con l’altro, in un fiume continuo che interconette ció che sta online e ció che sta là fuori.
Credo che al libro manchino dei pezzi fondamentali per comprendere davvero cosa stia capitando e cosa capiterà al senso e al potere delle immagini sui social. È un ottimo saggio (dalla bibliografia immensa), vero, ma dimentica l’industria, i modelli di business, e la capacità di certi social di imporre – più che di soddisfare – nuovi schemi, formati, e pensieri.
Ecco perché è concettualmente sbagliato criticare la ripetitività di certe foto (il tramonto, i piatti gourmet, ecc.) e usare canoni artistici della fotografia classica per valutarla. Il senso non è documentare, né archiviare ricordi: è parlare l’uno con l’altro, in un fiume continuo che interconette ció che sta online e ció che sta là fuori.
Credo che al libro manchino dei pezzi fondamentali per comprendere davvero cosa stia capitando e cosa capiterà al senso e al potere delle immagini sui social. È un ottimo saggio (dalla bibliografia immensa), vero, ma dimentica l’industria, i modelli di business, e la capacità di certi social di imporre – più che di soddisfare – nuovi schemi, formati, e pensieri.
June 6, 2022
This was - okay! I picked it up because it had been on the list for some time, and the books I’d been reading were going a little long and I was losing steam. I needed a little snack of a book to chew on, and this sure served that purpose.
The book has a couple of pretty fascinating ideas, but no unifying thread of thought that leads you into any conclusions. It basically flits around from discipline to discipline - sociology, art history, technoscience, anthropology - dancing around the premises laid out in the first couple of chapters, without doing the heavy lifting of interpreting the information in any solid way.
This all leads to a read that is very enjoyable and interesting on a surface-level, but personally left me feeling a little unfulfilled. I had hoped there’d be a stronger thesis statement that I could come away from reading having locked in my brain, but instead I just have a list of factoids that I can rattle off when the subject is raised in conversation (and I’ve sure been left with less than that from a book, so I guess we can count this as a win)
The book has a couple of pretty fascinating ideas, but no unifying thread of thought that leads you into any conclusions. It basically flits around from discipline to discipline - sociology, art history, technoscience, anthropology - dancing around the premises laid out in the first couple of chapters, without doing the heavy lifting of interpreting the information in any solid way.
This all leads to a read that is very enjoyable and interesting on a surface-level, but personally left me feeling a little unfulfilled. I had hoped there’d be a stronger thesis statement that I could come away from reading having locked in my brain, but instead I just have a list of factoids that I can rattle off when the subject is raised in conversation (and I’ve sure been left with less than that from a book, so I guess we can count this as a win)
September 20, 2022
Achei este livro por acaso flanando na biblioteca virtual que costumo pesquisar e-books para pesquisa. Nathan Jurgenson traz neste livro uma casamento fortuito entre as teorias da fotografia e da imagem com as teorias de comunicação e circulação e de mídias sociais. Ele cria o termo "the social photo" para descrever fotografias que estão circulando nas redes sociais e, mais que isso, são criadas ou enfim, capturadas, para que sejam usadas com o propósito de entreter o outro com um pedaço de nossas vidas. Ou seja, fotografias que não têm como propósito inicial de documentar, mas de socializar, de fazer circular e, mais que isso, serem rankeadas, quantificadas, através de likes e compartilhamentos. Nathan Jurgenson traz uma abordagem que não é nova, mas que mescla interessantes pontos de vistas que convergem para analisar essa qualidade de imagem batizada por ele como "the social photo". Esta análise é uma forma de entendimento que também me faz questionar de que forma os memes também não possuem muitas das características que o autor traz à tona em sua análise. Muito bom!
December 16, 2024
Jurgenson constructs the idea of the 'Social Photo' very well and gives us reason enough to care about it. The second essay felt baggy and meandering at times but landed on some interesting anti-Positivism stuff around big data and it's essential uselessness in comparison to how it is framed. However, the lack of demarcation of ideas in an academic book meant that it felt as if this final argument emerged out of nowhere.
There are plenty of interesting ideas to be mined from here and much of it is attempting to reevaluate concepts of photography for today. There was probably more chat about social media exclusively than I'd really signed up for.
There are plenty of interesting ideas to be mined from here and much of it is attempting to reevaluate concepts of photography for today. There was probably more chat about social media exclusively than I'd really signed up for.
March 6, 2024
This was a relatively short book that took me much longer to read than I would have anticipated. It contained a lot of philosophy, psychology and sociology so I could only read a few pages at a time and let it percolate. I enjoy reading thoughtful books like this every once in a while and did learn something about the interaction between photography and social media. Now it's time for some lighter reading!
April 30, 2024
must read for photo-makers takers and art thinkers, personally not super interested in social media theory but grounds the contemporary photo’s relationship and interdependence on social media in a much needed context. kinda heady and slow moving at times, but super captivating & will be reflecting on this one
December 17, 2023
As a book for uni I should have had lower expectations. Had interesting ideas towards the beginning and counteracted my typically negative view of social media but got boring and repetitive by the end.
November 17, 2023
Segir afar lítið sjálf, og það litla sem hún segir sögðu Benjamin, Sontag og Berger mun betur.
August 5, 2023
I picked this up hoping it would give me some insights into social media management, instead I was fortunate enough to get an in-depth reflection on personal identity, what it means to be 'in the moment' and modern documentation.
Also I finished this on the way to Kata Tjuta - which was rad.
Also I finished this on the way to Kata Tjuta - which was rad.
July 11, 2019
The Social Photo - On Photography and Social Media (VERSO, 2019). One of those books I just added to the shopping cart while browsing, thinking ‘now, this could be interesting’. Well, it wasn’t. I don’t even know what exactly the point was of this book. I guess, in summary, the argument is a bit like that as was the case with the invention of photography in the 19th century, 21st century social media and the ‘social photo’ (selfies, food pics on Instagram, you all do it and know it!) is again challenging our notion of what is ‘real’ and ‘authentic’. Or so.
What I appreciate about the argument is the critique of the ‘disconnectionists’ and their binary ‘wellness framework’ of an authentic, good and real ‘offline’ (think ‘digital detox’) versus a toxic, contaminated inauthentic online. Linked with the rubbish idea to connect with some ‘true self’ vis-à-vis the Instagram self. Contra this, the author reminds us Judith Butler readers that identity is always performative and that the policing of the selfie-culture (how many selfies are acceptable/ allowed? Why do selfies always need a pretext so what’s so bad about performing identity etc) is an expression of power (tying in with Foucault of how reinforcing what is delinquent is also a reinforcing of what is ‘healthy’ and normal).
So that I like. There is no ‘offline’ and the moralizing ‘disconnectionists’ pathologize digital connection but do not question the profit motif. It’s the ideological twin sister of the moralizing food discourse of clean, organic, vegan whatever eating without any critique of social structures of exploitation. Clean eating has become a form of ‘morally superior’ (white middle class) identity construction (you cannot just eat clean or vegan you need to tell the world five times per day, you become your diet, you become ‘a vegan’) that is of course extremely consumerist and profitable and with zero progressive content.
Now, here’s the joke though. Neither does the author present any progressive or even materialist analysis of the ‘social photo’ or social media. I mean, just think about the places we do NOT see on social media, sweatshops, construction sites etc. Or the whole role of social media and authoritarian surveillance capitalism.
I didn’t want to say it at first but I think if I had to create shelf for the book it would be ‘post-structuralist rubbish’, with way too many Barthes quotes. VERSO books, you let me down! I trusted you!
What I appreciate about the argument is the critique of the ‘disconnectionists’ and their binary ‘wellness framework’ of an authentic, good and real ‘offline’ (think ‘digital detox’) versus a toxic, contaminated inauthentic online. Linked with the rubbish idea to connect with some ‘true self’ vis-à-vis the Instagram self. Contra this, the author reminds us Judith Butler readers that identity is always performative and that the policing of the selfie-culture (how many selfies are acceptable/ allowed? Why do selfies always need a pretext so what’s so bad about performing identity etc) is an expression of power (tying in with Foucault of how reinforcing what is delinquent is also a reinforcing of what is ‘healthy’ and normal).
So that I like. There is no ‘offline’ and the moralizing ‘disconnectionists’ pathologize digital connection but do not question the profit motif. It’s the ideological twin sister of the moralizing food discourse of clean, organic, vegan whatever eating without any critique of social structures of exploitation. Clean eating has become a form of ‘morally superior’ (white middle class) identity construction (you cannot just eat clean or vegan you need to tell the world five times per day, you become your diet, you become ‘a vegan’) that is of course extremely consumerist and profitable and with zero progressive content.
Now, here’s the joke though. Neither does the author present any progressive or even materialist analysis of the ‘social photo’ or social media. I mean, just think about the places we do NOT see on social media, sweatshops, construction sites etc. Or the whole role of social media and authoritarian surveillance capitalism.
I didn’t want to say it at first but I think if I had to create shelf for the book it would be ‘post-structuralist rubbish’, with way too many Barthes quotes. VERSO books, you let me down! I trusted you!
December 20, 2020
started off strong w/ the analysis of Hipstomatic + Damon Winter's filtered war photographs, but then got a little repetitive. The social photograph is so ingrained in our life that the discussion of real vs. fake, identity performance, etc just doesn't feel that new. Was useful for getting a sense of what theorists and cultural critics to read for deeper thinking on the social photograph (Barthes, Foucault, Sontag, Benjamin, Baudrillard, etc.)
October 27, 2020
Stimulating exploration of the role and worth of photography on social media.
May 9, 2021
I thoroughly enjoyed this essay by Nathan Jurgenson, published in 2019. It is in two parts.
The first part considers the way in which the nature of photography has changed in recent times, with the vast majority of photos taken today being intended as communications forming a specific part of conversations, rather than as images designed to stand on their own merit. Jurgenson made these point through a lively account of the history of photography, which I thoroughly enjoyed.
The second part was more wide-ranging. While still based primarily around photography, it considered broad questions about the impact of social media on society and our behaviour. As Jurgenson acknowledges, there are a lot of books which cover this ground, often from clear pre-conceived positions (for example, arguing for ‘digital detoxes’). Jurgenson’s treatment is much more balanced and insightful, and makes a good argument that even when we are away from social media, it has altered our social behaviour to such an extent that there really isn’t a hard offline/online border of the type others try to describe. I found this a strong and convincing argument, albeit one that I wasn’t really expect this book to cover.
A few selected quotations (the first of which is fairly long, but I think usefully illustrates the underlying thesis of the second half of the book):
❦
Many of us have always been quite happy to occasionally log off and appreciate stretches of boredom, ponder printed books, walk sans camera—even though books themselves were also once regarded as a deleterious distraction from real presence as they became more prevalent. But our immense self-satisfaction in disconnection is new. One of our new hobbies is patting ourselves on the back by demonstrating how much we don’t go online, don’t have a certain social media account, don’t take photos. Conversations routinely plunge into debates about when it is appropriate to pull out a phone or take a photo. People boast about their self-control over not checking their device, and many often reach a self-congratulatory consensus that we should all just keep it in our pants. The pinnacle of such abstinence-only smartphone education is a game that is popular to talk about (though I’ve never actually seen it played) wherein the first person at the dinner table to pull out their device has to pay the tab. Everyone usually agrees this is awesome.
What a ridiculous state of affairs this is. To obsess over the offline and deny all the ways we routinely remain disconnected is to fetishize this disconnection. Authors of popular books and op-eds pretend to be a lone voice, taking a courageous stand in support of the offline in precisely the moment it has proliferated and become overvalorized. For many, maintaining the fiction of the collective loss of the offline for everyone else is merely an attempt to construct their own personal time-outs as more special, as allowing them to rise above those social forces of distraction that have ensnared the masses. I am real. I am the thoughtful human. You are the automaton. How have we come to make the error of collectively mourning the loss of that which is proliferating?
❦
Beginning in the 1880s, Kodak simplified taking and developing photographs with easy controls and pre-loaded, removable film that could be mailed back to the company and returned to the consumer fully developed. In addition to eliminating much of the technical knowledge previously needed to make and develop images, Kodak also sold photo albums for you to display your best images and advertised its cameras as something to take on vacations (to “prove it with a Kodak,” as one advertisement said). Documentation is always deeply related to a potential audience.
❦
While eating, defecating, or resting in our beds, we are rubbing on our glowing rectangles, seemingly lost in the infostream.
❦
Think about that common, and distinctly modern, Shakespearean truism also found in children’s stories, self-help books, and everyday advice: “To thine own self be true.” We are urged not only to discover that real, authentic version of who we are, but to remain faithful to it at all costs. It leaves little room for having more than one self, despite the many contexts we find ourselves in that draw on our different sides and different strengths. Advice to be true to some essentialized version of your self runs the risk of discouraging change and flexibility.
❦
In a stream of photos, it can be easy to forget the importance of the edge of the frame, the gaps between images. Each photo is at most only a limited truth, which raises as many questions as it answers.
❦
Each time you learn something new, you also learn more about what you don’t know. Discovery is never just a matter of gaining truth but also revealing new mysteries.
The first part considers the way in which the nature of photography has changed in recent times, with the vast majority of photos taken today being intended as communications forming a specific part of conversations, rather than as images designed to stand on their own merit. Jurgenson made these point through a lively account of the history of photography, which I thoroughly enjoyed.
The second part was more wide-ranging. While still based primarily around photography, it considered broad questions about the impact of social media on society and our behaviour. As Jurgenson acknowledges, there are a lot of books which cover this ground, often from clear pre-conceived positions (for example, arguing for ‘digital detoxes’). Jurgenson’s treatment is much more balanced and insightful, and makes a good argument that even when we are away from social media, it has altered our social behaviour to such an extent that there really isn’t a hard offline/online border of the type others try to describe. I found this a strong and convincing argument, albeit one that I wasn’t really expect this book to cover.
A few selected quotations (the first of which is fairly long, but I think usefully illustrates the underlying thesis of the second half of the book):
❦
Many of us have always been quite happy to occasionally log off and appreciate stretches of boredom, ponder printed books, walk sans camera—even though books themselves were also once regarded as a deleterious distraction from real presence as they became more prevalent. But our immense self-satisfaction in disconnection is new. One of our new hobbies is patting ourselves on the back by demonstrating how much we don’t go online, don’t have a certain social media account, don’t take photos. Conversations routinely plunge into debates about when it is appropriate to pull out a phone or take a photo. People boast about their self-control over not checking their device, and many often reach a self-congratulatory consensus that we should all just keep it in our pants. The pinnacle of such abstinence-only smartphone education is a game that is popular to talk about (though I’ve never actually seen it played) wherein the first person at the dinner table to pull out their device has to pay the tab. Everyone usually agrees this is awesome.
What a ridiculous state of affairs this is. To obsess over the offline and deny all the ways we routinely remain disconnected is to fetishize this disconnection. Authors of popular books and op-eds pretend to be a lone voice, taking a courageous stand in support of the offline in precisely the moment it has proliferated and become overvalorized. For many, maintaining the fiction of the collective loss of the offline for everyone else is merely an attempt to construct their own personal time-outs as more special, as allowing them to rise above those social forces of distraction that have ensnared the masses. I am real. I am the thoughtful human. You are the automaton. How have we come to make the error of collectively mourning the loss of that which is proliferating?
❦
Beginning in the 1880s, Kodak simplified taking and developing photographs with easy controls and pre-loaded, removable film that could be mailed back to the company and returned to the consumer fully developed. In addition to eliminating much of the technical knowledge previously needed to make and develop images, Kodak also sold photo albums for you to display your best images and advertised its cameras as something to take on vacations (to “prove it with a Kodak,” as one advertisement said). Documentation is always deeply related to a potential audience.
❦
While eating, defecating, or resting in our beds, we are rubbing on our glowing rectangles, seemingly lost in the infostream.
❦
Think about that common, and distinctly modern, Shakespearean truism also found in children’s stories, self-help books, and everyday advice: “To thine own self be true.” We are urged not only to discover that real, authentic version of who we are, but to remain faithful to it at all costs. It leaves little room for having more than one self, despite the many contexts we find ourselves in that draw on our different sides and different strengths. Advice to be true to some essentialized version of your self runs the risk of discouraging change and flexibility.
❦
In a stream of photos, it can be easy to forget the importance of the edge of the frame, the gaps between images. Each photo is at most only a limited truth, which raises as many questions as it answers.
❦
Each time you learn something new, you also learn more about what you don’t know. Discovery is never just a matter of gaining truth but also revealing new mysteries.
October 7, 2019
Really disappointing, surprisingly.
Jurgenson is a really influential thinker, for me: from his essays for TNI and Cyborgology, to the Theorizing the Web conference he founded, to his online presence in general.
So - I was excited when I saw that he was writing a book. I expected it to be a deeper exploration of points he's made elsewhere as well as reflections on what has changed in the years since he first made them. It was ... not that.
Maybe The Social Photo is meant to be a repackaging of past ideas for a new readership. I suppose it accomplishes that, but a reader new to Jurgneson would be better off reading all of these essays.
I could be wrong, but I got the sense that Jurgenson didn't care about this book very much. It felt rushed. The general structure made sense (although sometimes the links between the points in Real Life and photography felt forced), but the structure within each section was lacking. It felt like a mishmash of half-baked -- albeit compelling -- ideas. I continue to appreciate Jurgenson's perspective and will probably read anything he writes, but this book was a letdown.
A few quotes I want to hang on to:
"Our reality has always been already mediated, augmented, documented, and there's no access to some state of unmediated purity. The mediation is inseparable from the thing itself. The critique of social media should begin with how our reality is being augmented in more and less desirable ways instead of chasing the fiction of a non-augmented innocence." (70)
"The demand to weave that story [of our selves] together is one way social control is imposed. The identity in the profile may change, but the overriding plot remains predictable, socially legible, smoothing the self into an accessible, linear narrative. This tends to funnel the self, restricting behavior to a more limited set of possibilities. In giving us too much self, the profile leaves us with less. To have more self, we need media that promotes the self's mercurial fluidity and celebrates its tendency to change and multiply. Too much self is the self as a constraining spreadsheet; the minimal self becomes one with maximum potential." (89)
"Different from critiques of how profit motives structure digital tools often to the end of violating user privacy and autonomy, the wellness framework instead pathologizes any digital connection as inherently contaminating, something one must confess, carefully manage, or purify away. When the 'online' is framed as potentially toxic, users must assume a new responsibility for regulating their exposure. Remembering Michel Foucault's point that diagnosing what is ill is always equally about enforcing what is healthy, we might ask what new flavor of normal is being constructed by designating digital connection as a sickness. Similar to madness, delinquency, sexuality, or any of the other areas whose pathologizing towards normalization Foucault traced, digitality -- what is 'online,' and how one should appropriately engage that distinction -- has become a productive concept for organizing, controlling, and managing new desires and pleasures that have come with the development of communication technologies. " (76)
Jurgenson is a really influential thinker, for me: from his essays for TNI and Cyborgology, to the Theorizing the Web conference he founded, to his online presence in general.
So - I was excited when I saw that he was writing a book. I expected it to be a deeper exploration of points he's made elsewhere as well as reflections on what has changed in the years since he first made them. It was ... not that.
Maybe The Social Photo is meant to be a repackaging of past ideas for a new readership. I suppose it accomplishes that, but a reader new to Jurgneson would be better off reading all of these essays.
I could be wrong, but I got the sense that Jurgenson didn't care about this book very much. It felt rushed. The general structure made sense (although sometimes the links between the points in Real Life and photography felt forced), but the structure within each section was lacking. It felt like a mishmash of half-baked -- albeit compelling -- ideas. I continue to appreciate Jurgenson's perspective and will probably read anything he writes, but this book was a letdown.
A few quotes I want to hang on to:
"Our reality has always been already mediated, augmented, documented, and there's no access to some state of unmediated purity. The mediation is inseparable from the thing itself. The critique of social media should begin with how our reality is being augmented in more and less desirable ways instead of chasing the fiction of a non-augmented innocence." (70)
"The demand to weave that story [of our selves] together is one way social control is imposed. The identity in the profile may change, but the overriding plot remains predictable, socially legible, smoothing the self into an accessible, linear narrative. This tends to funnel the self, restricting behavior to a more limited set of possibilities. In giving us too much self, the profile leaves us with less. To have more self, we need media that promotes the self's mercurial fluidity and celebrates its tendency to change and multiply. Too much self is the self as a constraining spreadsheet; the minimal self becomes one with maximum potential." (89)
"Different from critiques of how profit motives structure digital tools often to the end of violating user privacy and autonomy, the wellness framework instead pathologizes any digital connection as inherently contaminating, something one must confess, carefully manage, or purify away. When the 'online' is framed as potentially toxic, users must assume a new responsibility for regulating their exposure. Remembering Michel Foucault's point that diagnosing what is ill is always equally about enforcing what is healthy, we might ask what new flavor of normal is being constructed by designating digital connection as a sickness. Similar to madness, delinquency, sexuality, or any of the other areas whose pathologizing towards normalization Foucault traced, digitality -- what is 'online,' and how one should appropriately engage that distinction -- has become a productive concept for organizing, controlling, and managing new desires and pleasures that have come with the development of communication technologies. " (76)
April 14, 2025
Has some good insights about the interplay and blurred boundaries between public and private, real and virtual, the “authentic” self and the imitation, poetry and documentation that occurs through social media use but it feels a bit obvious in parts (vintage filters…), and in other parts dated and short sighted, or just underdeveloped. I found it strange that he seemed so positive and optimistic about the use of Snapchat as a social photo software that (according to him) foregrounds the present more than other forms of social photo: “A self-destructing image especially demands a sharpened focus and an urgency of vision, a challenge to exhaust the meaning from the image in the moment.” I think it’s clear to anyone now that he’s giving that technology way too much credit. If anything it just reignites the hunger for more essentially meaningless images (pitch black selfies in a room before bed incentivized by streaks) as some kind of proof of connection that should be able to exist without a constant reminder. And, of course, the discover page is the worst kind of harmful internet slop, like tabloids but worse and more accessible at all times, although he was writing before the advent of that. It became more obvious why he took this stance when I found out he worked for Snapchat as their “sociologist,” which is a clear conflict of interest here, and this clash pops up a couple times, as well as when he calls self-destructing photographs “photographic population control”, somehow making other photos more special by their ephemerality, when really they’re just adding to a habitual production and consumption of images that flattens all of them. He’s rightfully critical of Big Data as a mechanism to help solve social issues, yet he seems fairly unconcerned by the ways in which the data on social media easily becomes state surveillance used to target social movements and vulnerable populations (immigrants, BLM activists for example), and with the profit-driven corporations concerned with keeping people using these platforms as much as possible regardless of what keeps them coming back, instead just arguing against a straw man absolutist view that “privacy (in its entirety) is dead” or that “the internet isn’t real life.” It’s true we can’t escape the influence of social media in how we view the world, and that social media has the potential to support subversion, but not under the current and dominant economic model social media platforms take.
November 25, 2020
There were some truly interesting ideas here! I would say that anyone NOT studying media as closely as I do might not find it that inspiring, but this was a perspective that I have really never seen expressed. I mean come on, a sociologist and academic of media who WORKS FOR SNAPCHAT??
It was particularly interesting in the context of my history of comms class, because the setup has been showing us over and over again how each new communication mediator incites pushback and fears of deterioration of society.
It wasn’t a super riveting read, but the idea of a “social photo” as a communication technology is fascinating to me.
Particularly interesting points:
- we lament being “in the moment” but can’t really express what that means (let alone the fact that by virtue of our obsession with being in the moment we are less present)
- who gets to decide what REAL LIFE is? We fetishize the offline, but a lot of the world today is online and that doesn’t make it not real
- social media is criticized for making us performers rather than seeking our “true authentic selves”, but by most accounts our true selves don’t exist, and most of our self understanding comes from how we think others perceive us
- virtual connection is considered to be less authentic than “in person, face to face” connection, but many other factors apart from distance and mediating factors come into play when it comes to deep connection with others
- photos are nostalgia for the future past
- just the general idea that casual pervasive photos aren’t narcissism or excessive documentation, they’re a new form of communication
I’m not sure I’m sold on the idea that these technologies don’t put privacy at risk just because you can’t get the full picture from social media (I kind of think you can if you’re Cambridge analytica) but overall my brain feels ENGAGED! Once again though, not a riveting book, especially if you don’t care about media and/or communications.
It was particularly interesting in the context of my history of comms class, because the setup has been showing us over and over again how each new communication mediator incites pushback and fears of deterioration of society.
It wasn’t a super riveting read, but the idea of a “social photo” as a communication technology is fascinating to me.
Particularly interesting points:
- we lament being “in the moment” but can’t really express what that means (let alone the fact that by virtue of our obsession with being in the moment we are less present)
- who gets to decide what REAL LIFE is? We fetishize the offline, but a lot of the world today is online and that doesn’t make it not real
- social media is criticized for making us performers rather than seeking our “true authentic selves”, but by most accounts our true selves don’t exist, and most of our self understanding comes from how we think others perceive us
- virtual connection is considered to be less authentic than “in person, face to face” connection, but many other factors apart from distance and mediating factors come into play when it comes to deep connection with others
- photos are nostalgia for the future past
- just the general idea that casual pervasive photos aren’t narcissism or excessive documentation, they’re a new form of communication
I’m not sure I’m sold on the idea that these technologies don’t put privacy at risk just because you can’t get the full picture from social media (I kind of think you can if you’re Cambridge analytica) but overall my brain feels ENGAGED! Once again though, not a riveting book, especially if you don’t care about media and/or communications.
August 7, 2019
The author builds on the work of a number of theorists to argue that digital austerity discourse is unwarranted. Using Benjamin, he argues that the selfie is “not anchored to true-or-false but conveys timeless emotion and wisdom.” Next Bauman’s insight on the increasingly liquid world in which we live is used to defend the ceaseless need to document every experience. Briet is introduced to make the case that �� it is better to record the world than to let it disappear.” Beyond simply certificates of presence or photograph-trophies, social media photos are “mediated through the logics of human habit, interest, power, and resistance. Social media replicate status hierarchies by way of likes and followers. With respect to the question of identity construction, observers/followers are transformed by what they choose to observe and what threads they choose to engage. The author rejects the characterization of digital connection as “disinhibiting moral toxin”, preferring instead to place a spotlight on the conflict between the self as social performance and the self as authentic expression. Our epistemic and ontological anxieties grow as less of ourselves and less of our world is truly knowable.
January 14, 2025
“The social photo makes more explicit than ever how we are made of and by images, just as much as they are made of and by us.” Nothing screams ‘holiday read’ like a book about selfies, “social photos”, identity and “the moment” — but Nathan Jurgenson’s essay The Social Photo: On Photography and Social Media is the most engaging exploration possible of these themes. Jurgenson considers the self as “a mirror of this near-constant production of identity”; he notes how “a selfie is different than a self-portrait, less an accurate picture of me at this time in this place and more […] a visual depiction of the idea of me”; he observes + distills ideas around photography, from theory to philosophy, making an accessible case for his arguments. “There is a pleasant contradiction in a photograph: at once it traps life and sets it free.” It’s that idea of “the moment” I found the most compelling though; noting that there is so much emphasis placed on living in “the moment”, and how the social photo takes us out of that, Jurgenson is not convinced that this is an accurate / helpful dichotomy — he sees it as a “useless” worry, because we are always “putting the moment to work”, “the moment” a flawed concept, fixity an ideal when the brain is forever processing.
June 6, 2019
A disappointment. If you're looking for writing on photography with the nuance and complexity of Sontag, Barthes, or Berger this is not the book for you. Re-read one of their books instead.
There are some thoughtful insights in this book. Sadly the author has a propensity to repeat them paragraph after paragraph with little development, leaving the reader feeling stranded when the subject changes with little resolution. Many times I found myself thinking this book started as a shorter essay that was uncomfortably stretched and padded out to meet a minimum length.
As Andrew Howdle noted in his review, Jurgenson criticizes other thinkers on digital media but does not seriously engage with their work, often quickly dismissing them for what seems like the sake of being contrarian. I felt this was one of the most serious flaws in the book, as many of the ideas he quickly dismisses linger and add up, undermining many of his own arguments.
Ultimately, there isn't much in-depth discussion about 'social photos' to be found in Jurgenson's book.
There are some thoughtful insights in this book. Sadly the author has a propensity to repeat them paragraph after paragraph with little development, leaving the reader feeling stranded when the subject changes with little resolution. Many times I found myself thinking this book started as a shorter essay that was uncomfortably stretched and padded out to meet a minimum length.
As Andrew Howdle noted in his review, Jurgenson criticizes other thinkers on digital media but does not seriously engage with their work, often quickly dismissing them for what seems like the sake of being contrarian. I felt this was one of the most serious flaws in the book, as many of the ideas he quickly dismisses linger and add up, undermining many of his own arguments.
Ultimately, there isn't much in-depth discussion about 'social photos' to be found in Jurgenson's book.
December 19, 2022
The book tracks the evolution of Photography as a medium by applying concepts of performativity & identity philosophy, specifically to the advent of social photography via social media.
Divided into two long form essays, Documentation Vision and Real Life, the book fails to adhere to a thesis but manages to provide a history of the medium, its utility, and its potential; thereby traveling through the past, present, and future. I think the paragraphs introduce really compelling ideas but fail to flesh them out completely; I then think that this book is a great resource to use as a launching pad for discussion but not as a resource to deepen understanding for a single subject. It’s an interdisciplinary read spanning sociology, philosophy, and art with really evocative and cogent writing.
Divided into two long form essays, Documentation Vision and Real Life, the book fails to adhere to a thesis but manages to provide a history of the medium, its utility, and its potential; thereby traveling through the past, present, and future. I think the paragraphs introduce really compelling ideas but fail to flesh them out completely; I then think that this book is a great resource to use as a launching pad for discussion but not as a resource to deepen understanding for a single subject. It’s an interdisciplinary read spanning sociology, philosophy, and art with really evocative and cogent writing.
May 21, 2024
An interesting read. The author presents a lose collection of thoughts (very infrequently arguments) supporting his (personal) observations, embellished with quotes from media theorists. What is missing here is a thread, a hypothesis, which could undergo some rigorous analysis. That would probably require more research, three times as many pages, and open up the author to even more criticism. Having said all that, I may not be the target audience. Ironically, when this was first published in 2019, the author may have had an inkling of change to come, which would make a thorough analysis even more cumbersome: The Social Video. He acknowledges as much in a mini-coda. The real value of this book is to be found in its notes, which provide a neat collection of valuable sources to dig deeper into the topic.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 68 reviews