Interwebology: Voyeurism 2.0
The classic image of the voyeur is that of a Peeping Tom peering through the curtains at an unsuspecting woman, a pervert trying to get a clandestine fix. However, what was once taboo has become commonplace. With the proliferation of Internet pornography, few could convincingly argue that we, as a society, don't like to watch.
The interesting thing is not the action itself it is the content thereof. It is no longer the innocent victim who failed to draw the blinds. Often, it isn't even the bold exhibitionist who sets up a webcam. It seems we are willing to watch just about anyone do just about anything.
Celebrities often bear the brunt of this attention, but this may have more to do with their accessibility than some innately interesting aspect of their lives. They have been singled out for having a highly visible career, but it is little more than this career choice (and possibly its associated salary) that sets them apart from everyone else.
Their faces are on screens across the globe as they perform and promote according to the demands of their chosen field, but what started as stray, periodic candid shots has evolved into a socially acceptable form of stalking.
Celebrity trackers exist all over the Internet. With the advancement of mobile Internet on cell phones, it is possible to be constantly connected to the activities of your favourite celebrities to within a few seconds of the actual events.
Jesse Oxfeld, former editor of Gawker.com, which fell under widespread criticism a few years ago for it's Gawker Stalker, described their service as “entertainment.” Many celebrities considered the site a potential tool for mentally unbalanced criminals.
Despite being a bone of contention for years now, sites offering this type of service are still popular and common. As recently as October of 2009 they were considered an enabling factor in a series of Los Angeles celebrity burglaries.
Blair Berk, an attorney for the defense, goes so far as to argue for the culpability of the paparazzi who helped inform the tools used by the defendants in the planning of their crimes.
Decades ago, celebrities were swarmed by reporters and photographers when they went to gala events. The common man was given a brief look into a glamourous new world. These days, however, we are looking into their worlds far more often, and rarely for the sake of glamour.
Us Weekly features a section for photographs of celebrities who are doing things so lacking in glamour that it is in fact entitled “Just Like Us.” Our fascination now has less to do with the indulgence of escapism and more to do with pure voyeurism. We are not watching because they are different. Aside from their career, we're in fact drawing attention to the degree to which they are the same.
Their jobs may seem more interesting, but they are still simply jobs. Their paycheques may be above average, but are far from unheard of in successful white collar work. Their day-to-day lives are filled with events that differ little from our own experiences.
So why are we watching?
Gossip, scuttlebutt, the infamous water cooler; we are a society obsessed with each other's lives, and the Internet has only served to increase the availability of the minutiae we seek. We are besotted with details as small as 140 characters or less.
Observing a life, rather than being an active agent in it, allows a false intimacy. We feel connected to a person we admire, without running the risk of having our interest rebutted through first-hand contact.
The only tangible difference between this scenario and a psychologically unstable stalker is a feeling of reciprocation, and with some public figures responding to direct messages on Twitter and comments on blogs, it isn't difficult for this reciprocation to be mistakenly perceived.
Business magazine CIO encourages employers to create face-to-face scenarios in the office via staff meetings and collaborative projects to encourage social skills between employees who spend their days sneaking Facebook breaks, electing to read status updates rather than approaching a coworker and engaging in conversation.
Voyeurism, to the classic pervert, is a chance to observe a person with whom he is unlikely to make eye contact in a public environment, gaining indirect satisfaction from a transparent forgery of an actual event. Stripped down to the simplest of definitions, are the activities of an Internet-savvy surfer really any more socially redeemable?
The interesting thing is not the action itself it is the content thereof. It is no longer the innocent victim who failed to draw the blinds. Often, it isn't even the bold exhibitionist who sets up a webcam. It seems we are willing to watch just about anyone do just about anything.
Celebrities often bear the brunt of this attention, but this may have more to do with their accessibility than some innately interesting aspect of their lives. They have been singled out for having a highly visible career, but it is little more than this career choice (and possibly its associated salary) that sets them apart from everyone else.
Their faces are on screens across the globe as they perform and promote according to the demands of their chosen field, but what started as stray, periodic candid shots has evolved into a socially acceptable form of stalking.
Celebrity trackers exist all over the Internet. With the advancement of mobile Internet on cell phones, it is possible to be constantly connected to the activities of your favourite celebrities to within a few seconds of the actual events.
Jesse Oxfeld, former editor of Gawker.com, which fell under widespread criticism a few years ago for it's Gawker Stalker, described their service as “entertainment.” Many celebrities considered the site a potential tool for mentally unbalanced criminals.
Despite being a bone of contention for years now, sites offering this type of service are still popular and common. As recently as October of 2009 they were considered an enabling factor in a series of Los Angeles celebrity burglaries.
Blair Berk, an attorney for the defense, goes so far as to argue for the culpability of the paparazzi who helped inform the tools used by the defendants in the planning of their crimes.
Decades ago, celebrities were swarmed by reporters and photographers when they went to gala events. The common man was given a brief look into a glamourous new world. These days, however, we are looking into their worlds far more often, and rarely for the sake of glamour.
Us Weekly features a section for photographs of celebrities who are doing things so lacking in glamour that it is in fact entitled “Just Like Us.” Our fascination now has less to do with the indulgence of escapism and more to do with pure voyeurism. We are not watching because they are different. Aside from their career, we're in fact drawing attention to the degree to which they are the same.
Their jobs may seem more interesting, but they are still simply jobs. Their paycheques may be above average, but are far from unheard of in successful white collar work. Their day-to-day lives are filled with events that differ little from our own experiences.
So why are we watching?
Gossip, scuttlebutt, the infamous water cooler; we are a society obsessed with each other's lives, and the Internet has only served to increase the availability of the minutiae we seek. We are besotted with details as small as 140 characters or less.
Observing a life, rather than being an active agent in it, allows a false intimacy. We feel connected to a person we admire, without running the risk of having our interest rebutted through first-hand contact.
The only tangible difference between this scenario and a psychologically unstable stalker is a feeling of reciprocation, and with some public figures responding to direct messages on Twitter and comments on blogs, it isn't difficult for this reciprocation to be mistakenly perceived.
Business magazine CIO encourages employers to create face-to-face scenarios in the office via staff meetings and collaborative projects to encourage social skills between employees who spend their days sneaking Facebook breaks, electing to read status updates rather than approaching a coworker and engaging in conversation.
Voyeurism, to the classic pervert, is a chance to observe a person with whom he is unlikely to make eye contact in a public environment, gaining indirect satisfaction from a transparent forgery of an actual event. Stripped down to the simplest of definitions, are the activities of an Internet-savvy surfer really any more socially redeemable?
