This screen is a smoke screen

Continuing on the theme of technology and human relationships, I see an increased tendency to cling onto old friends.

Thanks to the Internet, we can stay connected even when we move away from each other.

They may be good relationships, but we are prone to make less efforts to get to know the people who are in our spatial vicinities.

Is that bad?

The people with whom we share physical space are important in our lives, solely by that fact.

Such as my next door neighbor who lets his trees overgrow into my garden...

We and our neighbors benefit from the same systems for water, electricity, gas, telephone lines, public transportation and so on. Any change you desire in them is not possible, if you are the only one with that opinion. When information about such public utilities is scarce, your neighbor may have a crucial piece that you do not have. For example, you may be wondering how long the power cut is going to last, and your neighbor may know that the electricity would not be coming back in the next 36 hours.

A more useful case would be when my neighbor could alert me to imminent electricity or water supply cut... The Internet is making us negligent of our neighbors, and that is not for our own good. Is this your point?

When the power system is disrupted, by a natural disaster for example, we are disconnected from our friends and acquaintances with whom we communicated through electronic means. Buried cables can be easily disrupted by earthquakes.

And we are left with our neighbors whose names we know but whom we have barely seen in the past several years or more...

We encounter less surprise in our lives. That is another consequence of socializing only with the ones that we get along well with.

Wasn't that the whole purpose of not interacting with people whom we dislike?

You know, sometimes it is your enemy who tells you the uncomfortable truth about you.
  

That's why I want to stay away from them!

Surprises are not always negative and we are depriving ourselves from positive ones, too.

We can't sort the two, because of their very nature as surprises. 

The technology has made many of our hands-on skills redundant, but I realize that it is not something new. It is the very purpose of technology.

Think about the laundry machine. You should be grateful that somebody invented it.

True, but some skills are worth keeping, such as musical-instrument playing.

Aren't you happy that you are spared of listening to very bad performances by amateur players, because we can always play music CDs? 

Yes and no, because many elements in playing an instrument could be understood only by trying our hands at them. Any type of activity needs a broad and thick amateur base to support the very best.

I'm glad that you found a good raison d'être for us the mediocre and the simply untalented.

Anyway, the biggest skills that we are losing is in the domain of human relationships.

You said we are much less obliged to be in good terms with people, because the availability of most goods and services does not depend on whom we know and whether the procurers are willing to do us a favor of parting with what we need.

That is chiefly because technology replaces many of human skills, but I missed the point last time that the number of offers for goods and services also matters. Suppose you are the best chest maker in the area. Further suppose that there is a machine which replicates your chest making skills. If you are the only one who own or could operate it, people would still try to be in good terms with you so that they could have a very good chest.

But if the guy down the street owns the same machine and if people don't like me, they could go to him.

The real strength of technology is in mass production of productive means, comrade! It allows many of us without skills to act as if we were skilled producers. And because it creates many producers whom we can turn to, we don't have to worry about being in good terms with one particular person.

We can buy music CDs from literally millions of sellers. The process of inserting a CD in a CD player and making music come out of it requires much less talent than making music with an instrument.

It implies that technology for mass production is useless if we do not have the mechanism to distribute and sell the products.

Another necessary ingredient is the development of commercial institutions...

The more merchants exist for items that are comparable, the less dependent we are on a specific vendor. It means that we can be less concerned about figuring out people. If we could obtain what we want through only one person, we would have to bring up our needs when s/he is in a good mood.

We can't say, "Ah, excuse me, do you happen to be feeling charitable enough to accept my request without grunting, spitting in my face, or making unreasonable demands in exchange?"

We have to judge based on indirect evidences.

That becomes easier, the more you know the person.

We still encounter occasions in which we need to make a decision about a person whom we just met. However, since our lives nowadays require less and less of face-to-face interactions, we are losing the skills to gauge a person by how s/he looks and behaves in a few minutes.

Chatting online doesn't count as in-person interactions?

Think about all the information that gets lost. The timing it takes in responding is less related to how eager the person is to chat, but more to how fast s/he can type. The tone of the voice, the hand gestures, the facial expressions, etc. are all unavailable.

We can tell quite a lot from the eyes for sure. But do we have to worry about not seeing in person if we could keep in touch otherwise?

There is a great deal to face-to-face interactions, especially with your own species.

If so, it poses an insurmountable problem for you.

Right, I'm one of a kind... In any case, anything that we are told personally has a bigger impact on us than what we read, given that the contents are the same. You must have experienced it yourself.

I guess that is why we go to live lectures instead of just reading a textbook.

For important meetings, the best mode is in person. If that is infeasible, we opt for video conferencing, not telephone conferencing or online chatting.

Although many of us look on the screen as if we had been released from the psychiatric ward for the occasion... 

I may decide to buy something extra, just because an affable storekeeper recommended it. That's different from clicking on "Here's what we recommend for you" and clicking again on one of their recommendations. We shouldn't underestimate how much our interactions with living beings, in particular homo sapiens, could be life enriching.

Come to think of it, people usually keep pets for nothing other than their company.

You see? There is something affecting when your eyes meet with those of a deer for a second in the woods. I don't think it's available online.

That's why we meet in a café rather than e-mail each other, right?

Otherwise, how can you treat me to a piece of Linzer Torte when you feel like it, for example? 

Comrade... why are you waving to the waiter?

Being artsy, techy and auntie next door

Do you think technology brings us together?
 

If you are thinking about the Internet and its applications, such as e-mail, blog, social networking sites, the answer is yes.

Don't you think that the extremists can now find each other and strengthen their cause because of the Internet?
 

You mean, they would have been isolated and contained in the old times?

Kindred spirits can support each other, and thus, feel legitimized. People at the ends of the spectrum are now much more confident than before.
 

I suppose some ends are good ends...

What if the destructive types get together thanks to the ease of communication and search? As a coherent group, they could instill fear and make us distrust each other.
 

We are more divided, paradoxically because of the greater possibilities to be united?

Let me present a different case. When we did not know how to record audio information, the only way we could listen to music was by being at a place where a performer was.
 

All music was live back then.

It was important to know people who could perform, preferably well, or people who knew such people. Put differently, it made great sense to try our best to be in good terms with people in that arena.
 

I bet that the ability to play music instruments used to be a big bargain chip in arranged marriages.

Before Johannes Gutenberg, most manuscripts needed to be copied by hand. That limited the number of copies available.
 

Which meant that if you wanted to read something, you had to know and be in good relationship with the owner of the original or one of the few copies.

Connections matter for story telling, too. You have to know a story teller, and that person must agree to your request of telling a story. The same holds for artisan talents. Suppose chests could be made only by hand and you were very good at it. People will try to be good friends with you so that you would agree to make one for them when they need it.
 

Whereas today, you can go to any store, be nasty to the store personnel, mess around with the display and still get the item.

You can purchase almost anything through the Internet, so you can live without getting in contact with a human being.
 

Except in cases where the presence of your body is essential, such as having illness treated, hair cut, and tattooed. Dancing and kissing, too.

I'd say we are getting more and more alienated. Driving personal cars is a contributing factor in that regard. It is very convenient for doing weekly grocery shopping, traveling under bad weather, reaching remote places, etc., but we don't come into contact with fellow travelers, drivers and conductors.
 

We are free to curse loudly and as much as we like about other drivers on the road, because they wouldn't hear us. We may want to apologize for not giving the right of way when we should have, but there is no way to do so, either.

Technology has allowed us to live without maintaining good social networks. At the same time, it has provided us with the means to overcome the physical distance and to shorten the time required to exchange information. Think about the era when the letters were carried by a running human being.
 

Or a ship... Can't we say that we now have more control over with whom we mingle? We can ignore the owner of the corner grocery store whom we don't like, because we can go to a further store by car or order through the Internet. We can also become a member of all sorts of groups and get to know the members.

It may be a good thing to be among the people that you get along well with, but that poses a problem, too.
 

Again? What's wrong with staying away from people that we don't like? Most likely, the feelings are mutual.

We can't choose our family members, neighbors, classmates and colleagues. We have to deal with people whom we do not like, even abhor, in this age as well.
 

What about telecommuting?

You still need to interact with people who pay for your skills. Besides, if you don't like someone, electronic communication is not necessarily a good solution.
 

I thought you would prefer that, because you could hide your eyes shining with anger and contempt. Plus, your hatred can become more intense just because of the fact that you have to see the person.

That's true... But I think there is art in dealing with people whom we dislike.
 

So?

The more we practice, the better we become at it.
 

I'd say that's the best-case scenario. Some people may just explode. Don't we know a very good example around here?

Stop that thing with your elbow, please... Honestly, I think we are losing numerous hands-on skills because of technological progress. As recorded music has become widespread, we don't need to practice playing a musical instrument as preparation for hosting a dinner with music.
 

We can invite Vladimir Ashkenazy, if we wish, and that without knowing him personally.

No need to procure a piano of his liking either. The same goes with other skills that I referred to---story telling, chest making---and many others.
 

Isn't it good that we get to listen to first-class music with so little money?

Yes and no. Enjoying the very best art performance is no longer the prerogative for the rich and the powerful. It also means that we have much less need for second-, third-, and fourth-rate performers.
 

I see why you are so passionate about this issue.

I think you got it all wrong. Continuing with the case of recorded music, technology has democratized music by making it inexpensive to be exposed to top-notch performances, but also de-democratized by making us much less appreciative of amateurs and second-class professionals.
 

Winners take all... That's also the case with sports.

You got that one right. Because of television broadcasts, we feel less need to go see a real match by mediocre players.
 

Don't you think anything live has value because of that?

If it were not for that, so-so performers in any field would have been long gone. I'm inclined to single out digitization as worrisome development.
 

Comrade, you are one of the people who would be worse than hopeless if it were not for a digital camera.

It's not only photography, but also in other visual arts as well as in music, computer literacy and dexterity count for a lot nowadays.
 

Digitization enables easy entry into the field, and hence, it's democratization. However, in order to make full use of the tools, we are required to have skills that are beyond artistry. Is this where you are going?

Bravo, bravo, bravo...
 

I remember seeing you having a hard time locating an on-off switch of a television.

Come on, when I was three years old? Modern technology replaces much of what was unwritten and considered intuitive. It formalizes and verbalizes such knowledge and skills.
 

That is a necessary step to invent instruments meant for people without good intuition and feel for the art. Can't we say that, as a result, everybody is on the same playing field irrespective of such qualities?

I'm not so sure. The other day, I attended a demonstration session for photo-editing software, and it dawned on me that most attendees spent a tremendous amount of time on editing. They were mostly retirees, so that may have been the reason, but still...
 

What were you doing there?

To learn about this new software, of course. After sitting in the lecture room for a while, I realized that mastering all the new features as they come out is not part of fun for me. For many, photography seems to be about editing, editing and editing. Some at the demonstration talked about how excited they were when they found out that the shots from long ago could be improved with the latest software. For others, it is about clicking when they come across something visual that touches them.
 

Isn't that the difference between pros/semi-pros and others?

Henri was also not keen on developing films, mind you. Occasionally, he would leave them rolled up for years. The act of framing and capturing a fleeting moment, that's what thrills us.
 

Us...? But isn't that a stretch as a description of your endeavor? Buildings and statues do not exactly fleet, you know.

Don't get lost in personal details, comrade. My point is this: technology has made being artsy and techy interchangeable to a great extent.
 

Does that make you uncomfortable?

By definition, the artsy type has few words to explain what they are doing. In contrast, the techy type can overwhelm you with all the jargons, and that includes when their art work is not so great.
 

Well, even before digitization, we had similar problems. Ones who can play the violin well versus others who are better at music theory. Ones who can paint well versus others who are steeped in art history.

I'd say the problem has slightly changed, because the techy ones now have the means to create something that would have been impossible for them. Getting back to the issue of technology and people connections, I also know that before the advent of specialized magazines, books and eventually the Internet, we used to rely much more on connections for information.
 

Are you talking about totalitarian regimes which tend to be challenged in that domain?

Not necessarily. I remember my mother tapping the right person for each kind of information. If you want to know very good restaurants without limits on budget, talk to Monsieur A. If you want to know good-value-for-the-money restaurants, talk to Madame B. If you are looking for a place to have a drink near the theater, talk to Madame C, and so on. Naturally there was a don of information and connections in the neighborhood, and if you had no idea whom to ask you turned to that person.
 

The risk was that your inquiry may be relayed on the string phone, and turn into a big rumor.

Sure, there's always that possibility, whereas you can do any search on the Internet and erase your browsing history. But you must agree that the value of maintaining good personal relationships has gone down.
 

All right... But aren't you happy that you don't have to flash many insincere smiles in order to obtain what you want?

The Photographer in all of us

I see that you've got suntan. Were you outdoors in the past weeks?

I was on the road. I tell you, it was pretty wild at times.

Were you in the wilderness somewhere?

Not quite, but I was often surrounded by beasts.

Hmmm... I'm not sure what you are talking about, but I sense that you were not in the pristine woods, on an unspoiled savanna, or anything of that sort.

The beasts all had cameras in their hands.

Are you talking about tourists?

Locals usually don't go around taking photographs, you know.

What's so beastly about tourists' picture taking? That's a natural part of sightseeing. Besides, you were one of them, weren't you?

Gone are the days when we had to take into account how many shots could be taken with the roll of film in the camera, and be careful about each shot. With the advent of digital cameras at affordable prices for the masses, people have been transformed into self-professed photographers. Mobile phones with camera function has made the situation even worse.

We should welcome such developments. It's democratization of photography.

I was in a town known for beautiful architecture. It was packed with tourists, and if I took a shot, it would be just an image of the crowd. Then, I noticed one guy walking through the crowd, turning his head to the right, raising his hand up with the camera, taking a few steps forward, turning his head and raised hand to the left, and repeating the whole process.

You mean, turn right, click, march forward, turn left, click, march forward?

He didn't even stop for each shot. He simply kept on walking. It looked particularly bad, because with digital cameras, we do not put our faces close to the viewfinder. That gives an impression that you are not serious about the shot.

I knew that you had some prehistoric opinions...

Later, I was in another even more crowded place, where tourists were taking turns to see the interior of an historical building through glass panels of a door.

How large was the door?

It was a regular sized one, about 80 centimeters wide and 2 meters high. I waited for some time, being jostled this way and that. Finally, my turn came and I took a peek. Immediately, someone tapped on my forearm. When I turned around, it was an old lady looking very frustrated. She said, "I'm trying to take a picture," as if I had been intentionally obstructing her doing so for hours.

What did you do?

I stepped aside by shoving myself into the crowd. She took a picture, and left without thanking me! That was the first time in my life when someone told me to get out of her way so that she can shoot.

You were annoyed because you take pride in being circumspect. Correct?

In another popular spot for tourists in another town, a group was occupying a small room with a guide. They were there for a long time. When the guide led the herd out of the room, three people lingered on to take pictures. I waited for a while, but stepped into the room before they evacuated because it was taking too long.

Did you get yelled at?

I didn't, but again, I was tapped on my forearm. When I turned around, a guy indicated by way of swinging his chin to the side that I should get lost.

Was it that bad?

He looked awfully frustrated and angry.

You may have become too self-absorbed to take notice of people around you. Have you thought about that?

I tried to make sure that I did not interfere with their obsessive photo taking, but clearly, I failed. What can you do when you are admiring something and someone arrives afterward to take a photo from behind you?

Are you sure that is what happened?

I swear... What I don't understand most is the zeal with which people go about photographing literally everything.

Do they take pictures of rubbish bins, though?

Don't you agree that most of them are probably not professional photographers?

Yes, but that doesn't mean that they do not have the right to take photos.

But what do you think they are going to do with all the pictures?

Show them to friends and family.

I dread seeing vacation pictures. It is purely out of courtesy that I say 'yes' when my parents ask me if I want to see their photos.

Not everybody's vacation pictures are boring or bad, mind you.

You think so? I can enjoy them more if the vacationers are there to comment on them. They serve as visual cues for curious or funny things that happened, but could not be captured as an image.

Sure, comments like, "You know, when I was trying to take this picture, there was a tourist who stood right in front of me and wouldn't budge. Absolutely oblivious. Talking about manners..."

How many times do you look at your own pictures?

Not so often.

I bet after a good round of showing, you never go back to them.

True... But some of us enjoy seeing other people's vacation shots.

It is beyond my comprehension that some ask for mine.

It certainly is! But there's nothing wrong with that. They are being polite with you. Plus, some people are genuinely interested in seeing images from faraway places, even if they were taken by you.

That may be so, but that poses a problem as well.

I knew it... Everything is a problem with you.

When I show my pictures on request, people get tired pretty quickly.

Well, that speaks volumes about the quality of your photos, doesn't it?

Not entirely. They are expecting an interesting story woven together by the images. That means I have to select a good sequence to entertain the viewers.

I see, you are complaining about the work that their request entails.

I am also asked to do some explaining about my black and white photographs.

Why black and white when color is possible, that one?

I often hear dissenting noises.

Through their noses?

Because I am weary of explaining that bit, I started taking pictures in color, too.

Just for people who want to see pictures in color?

When I think a certain angle may have popular appeal, yes. Other times I think colors are important in a certain scheme, and switch to color.

You know that you couldn't have done it, if it were not for a digital camera.

There is no denying that we owe enormously to digitization, and hence, to Nicola Tesla. But the zealousness for pictures at tourist spots, it's almost frightening, and that's all because of the enhanced accessibility of photo taking. What's the point of tourists' using a flash when it is forbidden so as not to damage the art work?

That would apply to animals in captivity and on exhibit, too.

It's not that they admire the art or the animal first, and then, decide to record it. They start taking pictures as soon as they see the object, take pictures, and leave.

Well, let's hear how different you are from them...

I have also noticed that increasingly more amateur photographers are ready to wait for a good shot, although it used to happen only, I think, among the professionals. If there is just one hovering around nervously near an ornate gate, that's perhaps tolerable. But what if there are several of them, all wishing that other tourists-turned-photographers would leave and getting more irritated by each second?

May I ask how you know that people in fact wait, ahem?

Going back to the quality of laymen photography, in the past, there were a handful of very good amateur photographers and most of us took bad photos. Now there are many more good amateur photographers, because if you find a good composition, the 'auto' function of the camera would do the rest for you. If not, you can twinkle quite a bit with Photoshop.

You are contradicting yourself, have you noticed? You implied earlier that vacation pictures are bad and boring, but now you are saying that many pictures by amateur photographers are of good quality.

I think vacation images are not interesting to others as much as they are to the vacationers themselves, unless they are taken with artistic consideration. While there are a lot of mediocre photographs on the Internet, I am often surprised how many of them are good.

What sets the pros apart from the rest of us, then?

In the old times, they were the ones who carried cameras everywhere. But nowadays, many more non-professionals do so. Opportunities to show work to the public were available mostly to pros. Digital technology and the Internet have changed all that.

Doesn't that mean that there are numerous wanna-be-professionals? And if many of their pictures are good, doesn't it further mean that it is reasonable for them to harbor such aspirations?

It is. But then, I am certain that most wanna-be's will never be paid for their work, because too many of them are around.

We need a baker for every neighborhood, though.

How many people can bake good croissants at home, compared to the number of people who can take nice shots of Taj Mahal? If amateurs are capable of taking near professional quality photographs, photographer as a profession is almost dead.

Now think hard, comrade, because if we leave it at that, we will get not-so-pleasant letters from the professional photographers' associations, even with your 'near' and 'almost.' You are saying that the art of photography is much more banal than that of bakery.

I thought we were talking about how absurd vacation photo taking has become, weren't we?

Let me ask you once again. What are the skills that professional photographers possess, but are hard to come by among amateurs?

Perhaps it is the skills required in shooting animate objects, things that sense and react to the fact that you are focusing on them. Taking a good photograph of the Eiffel Tower, for example, is not that demanding. Plus, any good angle of immovable objects has been already photographed. I would find a particularly good composition only to discover later that the postcards or travel-guide photographers thought the same. I had that experience several times during the past trip.

What about moving, inanimate objects?

For that, we have consecutive-shooting function on selected cameras. As a child, I thought those were available exclusively to professional journalists, but now it is just another feature on the cameras for the masses.

I'd think taking photos with limited light also requires skills.

I agree. With auto-flash function, we often get terrible results, but simply turning off the flash doesn't help either.

Dusk, dawn, as well as under rain, fog, hail, snow... What about certain texture or shine, for instance, chiffon and silver? I think we are saved from angry protests!

The professionals will become more specialized in terms of objects than they used to be. Doesn't it say that, too?