You're correct about these things, and I share these views to a large degree, hence I'll delimit myself to the 3,000+ pictures issue: I've resolved, long ago, that the only pictures I'm keeping are those with friends and family members. Esp. in this day and (internet) age, there's no shortage of professional and/or much better pictures o…
You're correct about these things, and I share these views to a large degree, hence I'll delimit myself to the 3,000+ pictures issue:
I've resolved, long ago, that the only pictures I'm keeping are those with friends and family members. Esp. in this day and (internet) age, there's no shortage of professional and/or much better pictures of this and that landmark or sight, but these, of course, don't feature, e.g., our children, which is the thing I'm interested in.
I've also noted that people these days are running around looking at things 'through' their phones (thereby proving Marshal McLuhan incorrect): it's not the medium that is the message, but 'the medium'--the phone--is akin to a layer through which people perceive 'objective reality' these days. Add filters, change the width of the camera, you'll condition people to a distorted kind of vision, thus reality morphs into 'reality' (which, I'd argue, increases peoples' susceptibility to manipulation).
Yup, and don't forget McLuhan wanted to be wrong. Same as his "global village" statement; it was not meant in any positive way.
I think we're less than ten yeas off camera-tech coming with pre-installed "intelligent" filters making taking the wrong pictures impossible.
"The image you are trying to document is counter to the rules and terms of use. Repeated attempts will result in your device becoming inactive and permanently disabled until after inspection by authorised value system adjudicator-technician. If your device is found to hold untrue pictures, you may lose your picture-taking privileges and may need corrective education."
You're correct about these things, and I share these views to a large degree, hence I'll delimit myself to the 3,000+ pictures issue:
I've resolved, long ago, that the only pictures I'm keeping are those with friends and family members. Esp. in this day and (internet) age, there's no shortage of professional and/or much better pictures of this and that landmark or sight, but these, of course, don't feature, e.g., our children, which is the thing I'm interested in.
I've also noted that people these days are running around looking at things 'through' their phones (thereby proving Marshal McLuhan incorrect): it's not the medium that is the message, but 'the medium'--the phone--is akin to a layer through which people perceive 'objective reality' these days. Add filters, change the width of the camera, you'll condition people to a distorted kind of vision, thus reality morphs into 'reality' (which, I'd argue, increases peoples' susceptibility to manipulation).
Yup, and don't forget McLuhan wanted to be wrong. Same as his "global village" statement; it was not meant in any positive way.
I think we're less than ten yeas off camera-tech coming with pre-installed "intelligent" filters making taking the wrong pictures impossible.
"The image you are trying to document is counter to the rules and terms of use. Repeated attempts will result in your device becoming inactive and permanently disabled until after inspection by authorised value system adjudicator-technician. If your device is found to hold untrue pictures, you may lose your picture-taking privileges and may need corrective education."
Exactly. It's almost like we're on the way to living in 'The Matrix'.
Detox, cold-turkey style, is probably the way to go.