Nathan Jurgenson’s book The Social Photo first sets out to define and place the social photo as a separate entity to the more traditional form of photography. The distinction between the two forms of photography is then simplified into two forms the ‘Object’ and the ‘Experience’ with social photography concerning itself with the experience over the object. As Jurgenson says: 

 “Traditional analysis of photography fixate on the photo object….the what and how of a social photo is less important than the why.” [Jurgenson 2019:15]. 

Furthermore there is a need to discard the learned ‘art history’ approach to critically examine social photography, as we would with traditional photography. If we remove a social photo from the steam of social media we risk viewing is as banal [Jurgenson Verso 2019:11-16]. Much of Jurgenson’s views throughout this book can be referred to Susan Sontag’s ‘On Photography’, her views on what was then a newly established art form. On discussing proliferation of the photography she states: 

‘The urge to take photographs is in principle an indiscriminate one, for the practice of photography is now identified with the idea that everything in the world could be made interesting through the camera’ [Sontag 1973:111]  

The social photo takes the everyday experience of eating and makes it special by the act of posting images of food. As part of a stream of social photos the plate of food becomes a notable experience but an image that once taken out of the stream can bused as an example of the banal or over sharing. [Jurgenson 2019:15-16]. Sontag holds similar thoughts: 

‘Nobody ever discovered ugliness through photography. But many, through photographs, have discovered beauty…. Nobody exclaims “Isn’t that ugly! I must take a photograph of it.” Even if someone did say that all it would mean is: “I find that ugly thing… beautiful.”’ [Sontag 1973:85] and ‘This very insatiability of the photographing eye changes the terms of confinement in the cave, our world. In teaching us a new visual code, photographs alter and enlarge our notions of what is worth looking at and what we have a right to observe.’ [Sontag 1973:3]  

Sontag and Jurgenson illustrate the way in which photography has altered the way in which we view the world around us. Advances in technology increases the ease in which we create and share images. The mobile phone becomes less of a tool for verbal communication and one for visual, non-verbal communication. With each upgrade the mobile phone manufacturers improve upon the image capturing capabilities of each device. The big selling points are less about how well the device can allow you to talk to each other but the number of mega pixels and how quick you can upload an image. Jurgenson further discusses, early image sharing platforms and the introduction of the faux vintage filters, having a dual purpose, mask the low resolution of early camera phones and to pander to our need for nostalgia. [Jurgenson 2019:20-27]. The mimicking of fragile nature of the physical photo offers up a sense of the digital image being more valuable or precious. This physical nature of the photograph is talked about by Sontag: 

‘Photographs, which fiddle with the scale of the world, themselves get reduced, blown up, cropped, retouched, doctored, tricked out. They age, plagued by the usual ills of paper objects; they disappear; they become valuable, and get bought and sold; they are reproduced. …photographs are fragile objects, easily torn or mislaid…’ [Sontag 1973:4] 

The concept of the Social detox or Switching off away from devices or social media is one that runs through the book and more so in the second half. Jurgenson rejects these concepts as anything more than moral shaming the users [Jurgenson 2019:70-77]. It can be said we judge the use of social media based on our own nostalgic views of how we grew up. In particular when actively encouraging young people to switch off and go out into the real world like we did at their age. It seems almost ironic that the nostalgia used to entice us to share photos is also the basis on which we look to base the frequency of social media use. Jurgenson asks: 

‘why do so many of us feel as though digital connection puts our integrity as human beings at risk?’ [Jurgenson 2019:74] 

We can answer this question with a question. If I visit Prague and photograph the experience then return a year later, with a camera, will the city still be a beautiful? If the moment is not documented does it hold the same level of interest?  

‘The worry is that the ubiquity of social photography threatens our ability to really live in the moment.’ [Jurgenson 2019:78] 

We are now conditioned to see as if through an eye piece or screen and as such will often walk the city looking for the idea vantage point for a photo, even without a camera and as stated by Sontag: 

‘The camera makes reality atomic, manageable, and opaque.’ ‘Photography implies that we know about the world if we accept it as the camera records it. But this is the opposite of understanding, which starts from not accepting the world as it looks.’ [Sontag 1974:23] 

And as Jurgenson also says: ‘A crowd of raised phones at an event is like many outstretched eyes capable of sharing an experience in real time with almost anyone.’ [Jurgenson 2019:112] 

This is the new way of seeing and sharing and the new norm however Jurgenson fails to see the simple defining difference between social photo reality and reality. The frame is the defining boundary. The photo, social media, mobile devices, cameras are all limited by the frame. Reality has no edges, no frame and is boundless. The frames edge defines real from unreal. In the photographer’s Eye, John Szarkowski states: 

‘The central act of photography, the act of choose and eliminating, forces a concentration on the picture edge- the line that separates in from out-and on the shapes that are created by it’ [Szarkowski 1966:9]  

Technical advances have shaped and defined photography more than any other medium of art and as we look to the future we can expect the boundary of reality, the frame expanding or disappearing altogether. As such the social photo will evolve and adapt to what will become the new reality.  

References 

Jurgenson. N 2019. The Social Photo: On photography and social media. Verso books. 

Sontag. S 1973. On Photography. Penguin Books 

Szarkowski.J 1966. The Photographer’s eye. London: Secker & Warburg