The title for this post is actually an article that appeared in the New York Times within the last week. It initially appeared in the "multi-media" section of the Times' online edition, but was moved the next day and filed under "technology." (Yet another interesting example of the flexibility of online content.)
I ran my cursor right over the link at first. I am not one for technology-related news, but the accompanying photo caught my eye and up I scrolled. One graf in, I groaned to myself, thinking this would turn out to be a fluff piece (think advertisement masquerading as journalism), but the writer managed to take the findings of a recent study about what makes a photo attractive to people of the opposite sex (another groan) and was able to furnish readers what could have been a story about how best to master taking photos of oneself, into a great read with a look into what I think is a fascinating bit of sociology.
Here is a quote from a woman who found her son playing with her iPhone: “He was holding it up like he was taking a picture, but he was holding it in the wrong direction,” she said. “So I went over to take it and show him, but he clutched at it and said, ‘No, Mama — me!’ And he held it up to show me: He was taking a picture of himself.”
If anyone is interested, link story is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/01/fashion/01ONLINE.html?_r=1&ref=technology
It almost seems as if thisi journalist was brought a so-so idea from an editor, to which he added some dimension with a little "saved string"...
The article is interesting. I thought the sources the writer used were quite interesting as well. Who would you turn to for an expert's opinion on self-photography with an iPhone? Part of me can't help but wonder if these are really experts. But their observations are right on with the intent of the article and the article doesn't lurch to far in any one direction.
ReplyDeleteNow I have to find those tools Pucker and Bulge.