Since the beginning of our self-awareness, we have sought out ways to preserve

evidence of our personal existence. Cave drawings, handprints, posing in front

of portrait painters for hours, holding our heads in iron braces to keep our faces
clear in old daguerreotypes. Each self-portrait (narrative and visual – both
pictographic and photographic) seems to come from an almost anthropological
necessity of bringing outside something which is naturally personal and
intimate. Creating and communicating to the others a private image or the story
of the self could be considered as a human necessity of identification, a need to
establish the subject as public or political.

Oxford Dictionary declared “selfie” world of the year in 2013. So here we

go, selfie is “a photograph that one has taken of oneself, typically with
a Smartphone or webcam and shared via social media”. According to this
definition, this particular type of self-portraiture needs to be shared in order to
exist. A selfie is not only a technologically advanced technique of
photographical portraiture but something that has to be collective and public to
attest its value, and consequently producing discourses on itself. Externalizing
our own thoughts and desires then, in the case of the selfie, the act of showing
ourselves how we would like to be seen – under a specific light, from a defined
perspective and angle, with a chosen filter of colors etc. – takes place within a
frame mediated by the dominant power and its own discourses. 

The selfie as we know it today – taken with the front or back camera of a

Smartphone and shared on social media – dramatizes and intensifies some of the
aspects typical of the self-portraiture. Beyond the aesthetically substantial
difference between self-portraits such as the famous by Albrecht Dürer, Van
Gogh or Frida Kahlo and the selfies that we may find in selfeed.com, their need
of existence (ontological reason) in relation to their authors probably belong to
the same domain. Nowadays, the power of images has become so invasive and
important for each individual being that a sensible part of the population is daily
involved in the care of the illusion to manipulate and control his own images.
Therefore, the main tendency so far has been to refer and justify the
phenomenon of selfie with narcissism

The copious presence of selfie due to the diffusion of technology, accessible to

a large number of people, may not be a consequence of a mass narcissism,
rather, a sign of the extreme need to establish and impose a strong identity to
affirm the self in the world and among the others. Curious in this regard is the
reflection of American sociologist Alice Marwick who considers the social
media as technologies of the self helping the users to find popularity in our
postmodern consumerist society. In social media, people are invited to learn
how to promote themselves, how to maintain an high trend and popularity, how
to become stars in their micro environment. Referring to some notions defined
by the last Foucault, Marwick declares that, through the social media, the
individual is able to self-govern himself, dictating his own principles, thus his
own subjectivity. 

Starting in the 70’s, phenomenally talented women photographers turned their

lenses inwards on themselves and began to explore the female experience in a
predominantly patriarchal society. Francesca Woodman, Barbara Kruger,
and Cindy Shermanare some of the main proponents of this, but it seems that the
bad reputation of selfies are working retroactively and almost invalidating female
self portraiture as a real art form. Last year, the Observer introduced a Cindy
Sherman show in an article by labeling her as “Queen of the Selfies”. No. No. No.
NO. Cindy Sherman does not take selfies. Cindy Sherman is a leading artist in
exploring the female body image and encapsulating the concept of the male gaze
and how it affects women in society. These portraits are not meaningless. They are
not fickle.

But no matter how hard we fight it, the weight of this type of work is becoming
informal. We’ve gotten so used to pointless selfies that self portraits are being
taken less and less seriously. A huge example of this is shown in James Franco’s
most recent show (if you could call it a show) recently hung at the Pace Gallery,
which consisted of a shot for shot recreation of Cindy Sherman’s series “Untitled
Film Stills”

This series was an extremely important one, originally created in 1977 and sought
to question, undermine, and invert the male gaze in mainstream cinema. The most
fascinating and skillful thing about Sherman’s work is that she seamlessly slips
into all her scenes. She uses herself as a primary model but disappears, never really
existing at all. But in these renditions, Franco is tasteless, appearing always as
himself, scraggly and clearly masculine, flashing an offensive get-up of half drag,
half bad cinema. He tried to pass it off as an omage, as something about switching
the roles of actor vs. artist, but I’m not buying it. The problem with this is best
stated by art critic Jerry Saltz:
“By simply inserting himself into his recreations of Sherman’s images without
engaging with their charged play of gendered dynamics, Franco seems to be
presuming a kind of post-gender utopia. The world of Franco’s photographs, in
other words, is one in which power and gender are no longer linked. That’s a nice
fantasy and all, but articulating this vision of post-gender empowerment in works
that effectively neuter a seminal piece of feminist art smacks of hypocrisy.”

We’ve all done it: that arm’s-length, high-angled facial snapshot (at least
before the creation of rear-facing cameras) — but why? Are we really that
selfish?
 I peer into a mirror
To see just who I am
As the image fades it becomes clear
I may not ever understand

It’s tempting and simple to state yes, we are super-selfish creatures who are
just totally in love with ourselves. Then I could introduce Ayn Rand’s worship of
selfishness and reignite that age-old friction between service and self.
However, methinks the issue runs a touch deeper than simple facial
fascination.

Any talk of selfies must include a look at Self. The following is a modified
excerpt of a fuller sketch concerning the true Self:

What  we are serves as the outer shell of Self, given its objective
essence. What we are is pretty much what’s written on our drivers
licenses. Below the shell of what we are lies the core of who we are.
This core is to what most people refer when they say “me” or “I”: an unseen
entity molded by memory, our collective passions and fears, idiosyncrasies,
and those culminating facets of our selves that define us.

In the common meaning, who we are is a unity of all of these. The parts

combine to define an individual as, say a scientist or singer. Yet even this is not
we who truly are, deeper down…

It is tempting to say the Self at its core is merely the will. But the will is merely
the outcry of some deeper Self. The will is what we want, what we desire. The
will is but expressedthrough force of action upon an external world — yet this
will itself emanates from  a deeper core creature.

We now approach the heart of my analysis:

The true Self is a static, unseen, willful, and perceptual entity.

Regardless of the Self to which most refer when using the term, it is my
contention that the true Self is basically an unseen entity that never itself
moves, yet expresses and reveals itself through thought and deed. We can
travel to Mars, but our true Self remains seated the whole time.

This true Self is also perceptual, having the capacity to analyze, synthesize, and
categorize experience. Furthermore, something like intelligence is merely a
tool we possess. Sex is merely the payout from a gamble with the genetic
lottery. Memory is merely the stored series of life events and knowledge to
which the true Self has access.

Emotions, too, though they often run deep to the core, are merely indicia of a
preexisting creature capable of expression. We’ve all felt emotions, yet had the
will to overcome them. How then can we overcome ourselves? How can we
disobey our own emotions if we are our emotions?

All these elements commonly associated with Self are secondary, and simply
color the character of our primary being, the true Self, or are simply tools we
may use.

Enter in the recent selfie phenomenon — voted the 2013 word of the year. No

doubt there is much psychology (some take selfies for want of acceptance) and
sociology involved (taking such photos has become an acceptable social norm);
however, it cannot be the case that mere egotism and cultural influence
account for all the reasons why we take selfies.

Based upon the work above concerning Self, following is my supposition:

Insofar as we possess the capacity for self-reflection in terms of observing

our own thoughts and actions, we also possess the capacity for self-reflection
in terms of seeing a separate entity mirrored in the external world.

The fascination with selfies may be due to the fact that we objectify our
appearance, for better or worse. It may be because while on the surface
physical beings that grow and decay throughout time, we may just be
clamoring to chronicle our lives before we die.

Yet this all has a few implications: One, that we ought to give the Self more
respect than it often receives. Matters that concern the Self are often made of
lesser significance compared to other moral principles such as utility, duty, and
altruism.

Another is that there is a part of us that exists beyond the physical (not simply
mind-body dualism): When you snap a selfie, it’s not always the case that you
are goo-goo over yourself; it’s likely because you are viewing a second person.
You are not your reflection. You’re the operator behind that reflection, just as
interested in that image as someone else might be.

To those who actually do take selfies because of a fascination with their looks,

it may also be the case that insofar as you are not a physical creature, insofar
as you are really a nonsexual entity [I’ll return to this issue later] that just
happened to be born into a male or female body, you might actually be
attracted to your outer self that walks the earth.

Social media have become very voyeuristic. We watch other people and want
them to watch us. Whenever interacting with another Self, we are always at
least two orders removed: your outer self stands between your Self and the
outer self of another.

When we post selfies, we are so fascinated because we’re really watching

someone else