Gepostet vor 5 Jahren, 1 Monat in
Sehr schöner Artikel auf The New Inquiry über den Offline-Backlash, die Fetischierung des Nicht-Online-Seins und den Stolz auf das „Echte-Leben-Haben“ – und wie albern das alles eigentlich in Wahrheit ist. Den Text würde ich gerne einigen Leuten an die Stirn nageln. (Außerdem mag ich sehr, wie der Autor Nathan Jurgenson den Begriff „Phone“ als Anachronismus bezeichnet.)
Critics complain that people, especially young people, have logged on and checked out. Given the addictive appeal of the infostream, the masses have traded real connection for the virtual. They have traded human friends for Facebook friends. Instead of being present at the dinner table, they are lost in their phones. […]
The current obsession with the analog, the vintage, and the retro has everything to do with this fetishization of the offline. The rise of the mp3 has been coupled with a resurgence in vinyl. Vintage cameras and typewriters dot the apartments of Millennials. Digital photos are cast with the soft glow, paper borders, and scratches of Instagram’s faux-vintage filters. The ease and speed of the digital photo resists itself, creating a new appreciation for slow film photography. “Decay porn” has become a thing. […]
In great part, the reason is that we have been taught to mistakenly view online as meaning not offline. The notion of the offline as real and authentic is a recent invention, corresponding with the rise of the online. If we can fix this false separation and view the digital and physical as enmeshed, we will understand that what we do while connected is inseparable from what we do when disconnected. That is, disconnection from the smartphone and social media isn’t really disconnection at all: The logic of social media follows us long after we log out. There was and is no offline; it is a lusted-after fetish object that some claim special ability to attain, and it has always been a phantom.