P

Possible in Photography photography as a visual language has been studied

by semiologists (Barthes 1977; Berger 2014; Joly
Francesco Arese Visconti 2015; Lester 2014; Rose 2001).
Webster University Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland In this sense, as a communication system, pho-
tography makes communication possible between
Keywords human beings. It makes this communication pos-
sible across spatial and temporal distance.
Photography · Visual semiotics · Portrait
photography · Possible · Selfies · Web-sharing
Introduction
Definition
A black wooden case (7  5.5 cm) covered by
decorated leather (Fig. 1): this is a daguerreotype
Photography is a form of expression. It uses
from the middle years of the nineteenth century.
images to communicate. Previously called
Once opened, protected by felt and behind a glass,
heliography, daguerreotype, or calotype, the pro-
we discover a shiny, reflective portrait of a man
cess of capturing images in a permanent way was
mounted in a golden frame. This portrait was
assigned the term photography by Sir John F. W.
taken on a silver plate. A man in his thirties stares
Herschel in 1839 (Newhall 2009, p. 21). The
at us. He wears a white shirt with a bow tie, a
etymology of photography comes from the
waistcoat, and a jacket. With a long goatee beard
ancient Greek and it is composed by two words:
and hair which covers his ears, he looks straight
photos and graphein. Photos literally means “of
into the camera. The lack of expression enhances
the light.” Graphein means writing. Photography
what Walter Benjamin (1935) called the aura, the
is the writing of the light. Every time we take a
unique phenomenon of the distance. It is a tem-
photograph, we are “writing” a message and it is
poral distance. Staring at us with this neutral
important that we know how to ‘write’ this mes-
expression from another century, this man estab-
sage to properly communicate. Photography uses
lishes a dialogue with us. Who is he? What was
a complex system of signs in the same way as
his job? Which were his fears, his goals, his
written language does. The complexity of this
achievements in life? What did he do right after
system of communication arises from the way
this photographic session? Did he go back home?
that the used signs can be misinterpreted and
Did he have an appointment? A photographic
create different associations for each viewer/
portrait of an ordinary man makes possible an
reader. This is one of the reasons why
improbable, but intense, dialogue through
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021
V. P. Glăveanu (ed.), The Palgrave Encyclopedia of the Possible,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98390-5_132-1
2 Possible in Photography

Possible in Photography, Fig. 1 Unknown. Portrait of an unknown young man. 1850 c. Daguerreotype. (Source:
Arese Visconti private collection)

centuries. Can portrait photography produce some maintained through centuries. While this point
sort of immortality for humans? could be seen only as a positive aspect generated
Photographic portraiture became a mass phe- by technological innovation, we will see that there
nomenon with the official presentation of the is also a negative impact on society.
daguerreotype at the Académie de France in
1839, (Sorlin 2001, p. 21). Until the middle
years of the nineteenth century, only kings and
Daguerreotype: A Mirror with a Memory
aristocrats could afford to have a portrait painted
and even in that case it was an idealized represen-
Developed in collaboration with Nicéphore
tation of reality (Burke 2001, p. 22). Photography
Nièpce, the Daguerreotype process was presented
made the representation of the self-accessible to a
for the first time by Louis Jacques Mandé Daguerre
large number of people. If by the democratization
on August the 15th 1839 at the Academy of Sci-
of photographic portraiture, we mean the financial
ences and at the Academy of Fine Arts in Paris. The
and technical accessibility of the mass to the
rights to the invention were bought by the French
medium, what are the pivotal moments in the
government which made them open to the public.
history of photography which marked this phe-
In the first years after the official presentation, the
nomenon? Through a reflection on the value and
main themes represented on the daguerreotypes
characteristics of portrait photography on
were still life and architecture (Newhall 2009, p.
daguerreotypes, on cartes de visite, on snapshots
19). The exposure times were too long to allow
taken with Kodak Brownie cameras and on
portraits. Subsequent technical improvements
smartphones selfies, this chapter will explore
shortened exposure times from several minutes to
whether or not the value of photographic portrait
few seconds and so, by 1841, photographic por-
for the masses has changed and the possibility of
traits were common. Photographic studios offering
becoming somehow immortal (being immortal-
portraits on daguerreotypes opened almost every-
ized) through a photographic portrait has been
where in the Western world (Newhall 2009, p. 30).
Possible in Photography
The vast majority of daguerreotypes still existing
today are portraits and were taken in studios fully
equipped for that purpose. It is likely that four out
of five daguerreotypes in the mid nineteenth cen-
tury were portraits (Sorlin 2001, p. 32). Face and
human body became the main subjects of a differ-
ent figurative art fully based on photography. They
are very detailed in their realistic representation.1
They offered a contrast with the paintings that had
gone before; while photographic images portrayed
mortal human beings with their imperfections and
defects, paintings could translate an interpreted
reality. Painters were able to disguise the deformi-
ties and enhance the postures and gestures of the
sitters and provide them with accessories and
objects to deliver a message (Burke 2001, pp. 25–
26). These aspects had a meaning which usually
supported the kings, queens, or aristocrats’
portrayed desires of self-representation. A painted
portrait of the nineteenth century was not the equiv-
alent of a realistic image, but was rather the result
of the collaboration of the artist and the sitter and
referred to by Goffman (1969) as meaning of the
presentation of the self. In the production of por-
traits with the new photographic medium, new
iconographic conventions were introduced.
Daguerreotypes followed those ones of coeval
very popular miniatures: sitters were mostly
portrayed against a neutral background, with a
diffused light usually coming from the ceiling;
because of the long exposure time and the risk of
blurring, sitters were asked not to smile and to look
straight forward into the camera. The photographer
was, of course, the intermediary between the sitter
and the viewer, but it is the gaze offered by the sitter
to the lens which generates that direct connection
with the viewer even after centuries. Still today,
when looking at a daguerreotype portrait, we feel
1
Description of the qualities of a daguerreotype by Sir John
F. W. Herschel to William Henry Fox Talbot, May 9th
1839: ‘It is hardly too much to call them miraculous.
Certainly, they surpass anything I could have conceived
as within the bounds of reasonable expectation. The most
elaborate engraving falls far short of the riches and
delicateness of execution, every gradation of light and
shade is given with a softness and fidelity which sets all
painting at an immeasurable distance’ (Newhall 2009, p.
21).
3
that we are facing a presence. Walter Benjamin
(2015, p. 29) in his “Little History of Photography”
argues that these presences became distinct and had
an aura because of the reserve of the bourgeois
sitters, with genuine innocence in front of the cam-
era (they didn’t know what that was), and the
contrast tones and long exposures (so that the sub-
jects had to hold the same expression for a long
time).2
Daguerreotypes had very sharp details. They
also inverted the image (in the same way we see
ourselves on a mirror) and represented a mass
phenomenon which needed an intermediary (a
photographer) to be produced. Every daguerreo-
type was different, unique and not reproduceable.
The invention of the paper negative and, then, of
the negative on glass favored the multiple repro-
duction of the same shot and signed another key
moment in the history of photography. The carte de
visite was one of the products that were promoted
after this technical innovation.
The Facebook of the 1860s: la Carte de
Visite
In the middle of the nineteenth century, 8–12 lens
photographic cameras were used to reproduce sev-
eral images on one single negative plate. These
small images were cut and then mounted on card-
board (Fig. 2). Many copies from the same nega-
tives could be reproduced. In 1854, André
Adolphe-Eugène Disderi (1819–1889) patented
the carte-de-visite system in France and standard-
ized the photograph size mounted on card stock
6  10 cm. Motion was not a problem in this kind
of photography as most portraiture took place
indoor in a controlled environment with exposures
no longer than 15 s.
These photographs were printed directly from
the negative and, therefore, not enlarged. The resul-
tant image was detailed, but not as crisp as a
daguerreotype. The use of the negative allowed
2
These elements will return in contemporary photogra-
phers like Avedon, Hanzlova, Dijkstra (see Stallabrass
2007).
4 Possible in Photography
Possible in Photography, Fig. 2 Louis Bechstein. Por-
trait of an unknown young woman. 1880 c. Albumen print
on cardboard. (Source: Arese Visconti private collection)
straight rather than inverted images. The cost of the
process was acceptable and the relatively small size
of the final product supported the spread of it.
People started to collect portraits and have them
in their pockets all the time (in the same way we do
today with our phones. . .). Historian Ronald S.
Coddington (2016) states that the carte de visite
developed into a social media phenomenon, and
defined its invention as the greatest since the birth
of photography: small, light, and portable, the carte
de visite allowed to write on it the details of the
person pictured. It represented one more step
towards the democratization of photography and
was an inexpensive form of social medium acces-
sible to anyone. In the 1862 London Review
(Coddington 2016), one could read “here there is
no barrier of rank, no chancel end; the poorest
owns his three inches of cardboard, and the richest
can claim no more. When they serve as pegs on
which to hang our knowledge and sentiment, our
memories and associations, they may be the
highest use.” Cartes de visite were a large mass
phenomenon which still needed an intermediary
(photographer) to realize the final print.
‘You Press the Button, We Do the Rest:’
the Kodak Brownie Snapshot
This is a Kodak circular snapshot photograph of two
young children walking down a road, taken by an
unknown photographer in the United Kingdom in
1890 c. (Fig. 3). The photograph was taken with a
Kodak Brownie camera: a simple, leather-covered
wooden box designed for amateur use, which pro-
duced circular snapshots two and a half inches in
diameter. Invented by George Eastman in 1888, the
Brownie camera was sold preloaded with film, and
when the whole film had been exposed the camera
was sent back to Kodak who developed it, returning
the prints and the reloaded camera. “You press the
button, we do the rest” stated the advertisement of
the Brownie Camera. This process represented
another mass phenomenon in the history of photog-
raphy marked by its easy access to anyone. Despite
of the disadvantage of less precise details than a
daguerreotype, the Kodak Brownie snapshot had
the advantage of not needing an intermediary to
press the shutter. There was no need of particular
technical knowledge and for this reason it
represented another milestone for the mass diffusion
of portrait photography. After the expansion of the
Kodak Company and the development of the ama-
teur photography market from the end of the nine-
teenth century, there have been other important
technological innovations which contributed to the
democratization of the medium (see the invention of
the Polaroid system, the disposable cameras, and,
obviously, the birth and growth of digital photogra-
phy). However, it is particularly after the invention
of the first smartphone with a camera,3 the broader
3
In 1999 Kyocera Visual Phone VP-210 was the first
smartphone to incorporate a 110,000-pixel frontal camera
(Yegulalp 2012).
Possible in Photography
Possible in Photography,
Fig. 3 Unknown. Two
young girls. 1890 c. Silver
gelatin print. (Source:
Kodak Collection/National
Science & Media Museum/
Science & Society Picture
Library)
accessibility of photographic practices to masses,
and the introduction of social media platforms that
the diffusion and publication of self-portraits have
impressively grown. These aspects made possible
the process of democratization of portrait photogra-
phy and added strong elements for reflection on the
representation of the self (Fig. 4).
Selfies: The Online Social Shop-Window
Between March and May 2020, during the lock-
down period against the spread of the COVID-19,
on the online version of the newspaper La
Repubblica the famous photographer Oliviero
Toscani promoted the initiative “A selfie for
Oliviero Toscani. Let’s become reporters of our-
selves to narrate our lives during the age of Coro-
navirus.” Without having any specific technical
knowledge, thousands of people sent their selfies
to the newspaper and created a large online com-
munity. This phenomenon once again highlights
5
the typical characteristics of the last frontier of
portrait photography.
Merriam-Webster dictionary (Selfie 2020)
defines the term “selfie’” as “an image that
includes oneself (often with another person or as
part of a group) and is taken by oneself using a
digital camera especially for posing on social net-
works.” Selfies have some similarities with the
previous forms of portrait photography, but add
new elements as well.
In common with the previous forms of portrait
photography (daguerreotype, carte de visite and
Brownie Kodak snapshots), selfies involve the
democratization of the medium: anyone with a
basic knowledge of how to use a smartphone is
capable of taking self-portraits (selfies). Like the
daguerreotype, the carte de visite and the Kodak
Brownie snapshot, selfies are taken to express the
same desire of recording memories. Despite of all
these similarities with the previous forms of por-
trait photography, selfies do not need an interme-
diate (photographer or lab to develop pictures):
6 Possible in Photography
Possible in Photography, Fig. 4 Screenshot of the
page. https://www.repubblica.it/cronaca/2020/03/31/
news/coronavirus_selfie_toscani-252823917/. (Accessed
April 15th 2020)
we are the first users (Bate 2016; Brus 2017). You
see yourself and you choose when to shoot. This is
the first main difference of this form of photo-
graphic portrait when compared with the previous
ones. Selfies are more interactive with the
portrayed person. Kodak snapshots had a “per-
sonal agency and were a cultural ritual” (Brus
2017, p. 88). They made possible the freedom of
self-expression and familiar private life. Like the
snapshot, selfies show what we are and where we
are. This is the main point of my argument: selfies
are the latest element of the process of democrati-
zation of portrait photography of the first 20 years
of the twenty-first century. They reinforce the
dominant position of the sitter as being simulta-
neously the author and the user. Technological
innovation in photography has made possible for
everyone to be able to take selfies independently
without the help of any intermediary and to make
public our faces. Selfies are not individual, rather
social acts and can be seen as part of the Identity
Work theory (Snow and Anderson 1987): we build
our identity every day through the way we dress,
speak, move. Taking selfies becomes part of the
contemporary action of building our identity. As
argued by David Bate (2016, p. 37), with selfies
“the event is already mediated into an image even
before it is perceived.” Since we are looking at a
screen, Bate explains that emotions and experi-
ences are already mediated as images. In the
selfie, face and frontality prevail. The face could
be considered the place where experiential and
communicative functions are concentrated (AA
2017). As a flat surface on which other organs
work (eyes, mouth, muscles, etc.), the face is
where movements (through muscles) show pas-
sions and emotions. It is unclear and difficult to
define the notion of face. It involves expression,
recognition, frontality, and look (AA 2017) which
are all concerned with communication. The face is
the first of several planes (expressions) which
confront you with the others. It is, then, possible
to say that the face has multiple expressions, but
only one is frozen in a selfie posted on social
media. When a selfie is taken, an act of perfor-
mance is happening. People perform in front of
the lens. All the process is connected with the
etymological meaning of “face:” facere. Facere
comes from Latin and it means “to make.” “To
make” implies the sense of producing something
including the act of performing. “The performa-
tive aesthetics animate our everyday activities”
(Bate 2016, p. 93). Portraits have always been
social performances, a social illusion (Burke
2001), but selfies today don’t have the interpreter.
As painters in the past interpreted their subjects
according to the coeval society (historical
moment), today we take our selfies to transmit
our image to the social context, and we do not
Possible in Photography
need an interpreter for doing this. We are our own
interpreters. It is a physical extension/experience
of our body (we see in the selfies that the photo-
graphic device is attached to the body of the
person portrayed by the shape of the shoulder
and the position of the arm). Selfies and their
digital world are more complex than a simple
portrait. The person portrayed is an agent. Being
homo faber, he or she become its own deus ex
machina. As stated by Italian sociologist Vanni
Codeluppi (2007), digital photography and its
applications involve the individual under several
points of view. Selfies are a physical experience.
The photographic device is part of the body, part
of the physical identity.
Human society has developed the concept of
the shop window and, therefore, individuals today
adopt this model in its virtual form, an exhibition
model for valorization. A selfie is not only the act
of producing a self-portrait, but it is taken with the
idea of being shared on the web. The moment of
its production (the decision of “pressing” the
“shutter”) implies already the web-sharing pro-
cess. The online social shop-window is a concept
developed by Codeluppi (2007). Shop windows
make useless the physical presence of the owner.
They change the relationship between the seller
and the client. They make the shop “un-personal-
ized.” Shop windows are also a place of vision: it
is like a stage on which a show is going on. It is the
place of self-exhibition. From the eighteenth cen-
tury (when they were initially invented), the idea
of the shop window has had social implications up
to the point that we have been influenced in the
perception of the self in relation with the others
and, in this regard, the exhibition of our private
life. This process of becoming objects exhibited
on an online shop window corresponds to a sense
of alienation, solitude of humans. We decide how
we want to appear and create an avatar. Upon the
creation of this avatar and the publication of the
image on social media (necessary condition for
the existence and justification of the selfie), we
become part of a twenty-first century imagined
online community (Anderson 1991) in the process
of self-recognition as a group. Society and tech-
nological innovation, once again, are interwoven.
This point recalls sociologist Latour’s (1990)
7
reflections on society and technology and their
relation to power and domination. His theory
(Latour 2005) acknowledges that society is
assembled by interactions of human and non-
human actors (like smartphones, selfies, and
online platforms in this case). Digital production
and its actors (human and non-human) initiate
complex and dynamic phenomena which involve
social interaction and political agenda. The high
democratization of portrait photography due to
the introduction of smartphones with cameras
and social media platforms opens a new chapter
of reflections on how this could be seen as positive
social progress for the technical development and
accessibility, but also its negative implications.
Beyond the idea of rhetoric of progress, we must
not limit our analysis to simply describe the use of
the medium and understand the social implica-
tions of technological innovation.
Does photography make some things possible
that are actually harmful? Is taking and posting
selfies on social networks only a positive and
worthwhile activity? The answer is that the
democratization of the medium with the broad
accessibility to the masses brings with it also
negative consequences related to two aspects in
particular. Research shows that individuals are
psychologically impacted and that there are issues
related to the possible abuse of privacy of the
online population. As far as the first point is
concerned, studies (Katz and Crocker 2015;
Mills et al. 2018; Scott et al. 2018) state that selfies
can cause addiction in particular on young users.
Often linked to narcissism (Katz and Crocker
2015, p. 1861, 1865), selfies can have negative
effects on mood and body image of young women
(Mills et al. 2018). Defined as a self-presentation
strategy, selfies are pointed as the cause of
“changes to mood and feelings of physical attrac-
tiveness” (Mills et al. 2018, p. 86). Lastly, it has
been highlighted that while these technical inno-
vations support the development of new forms of
oral, verbal, and visual communication (Katz and
Crocker 2015, p. 1871), they can be detrimental
for the level of quality in relationships and involve
a decrease of intimacy and support (Houghton et
al. 2013).
8 Possible in Photography
Two billion photos were estimated to be
uploaded on Facebook every month (Stefanone
et al. 2011) already in 2011. These numbers have
grown: one trillion photos were taken and posted
on social media in 2018 (Suciu 2019). Photo-
graphs and photographic portraits can turn into a
big business. Since 2014, Facebook started using
the face recognition technology called “Deep
Face,” an algorithm able to identify a face in a
crowd with 97.35% accuracy (Taigman et al.
2014). Facial recognition is also used to unlock
smartphones. Where is this information going?
Are we sure that our faces are not recorded?
Selfies can provide invaluable information for
commercial or population control purposes. The
idea of using portrait photography for police con-
trol was already introduced by Alphonse Bertillon
(the so-called bertillonage) at the end of the nine-
teenth century (Sekula 1986), but technology
applied to modern portrait photography, with
location information and facial recognition,
expands the possibility of tracking people on a
global dimension. Selfies provide an incredible
amount of visual information of people. How are
our online portrait used and by whom? This is the
other side of the possible in photography. Next to
the positive aspects listed before, like the wide
accessibility to the medium and its democratiza-
tion, it is important to acknowledge the “dark”
side of it with negative consequences on the pri-
vate and public scale for the individual.
Conclusions
Photographic portraits of ordinary people make an
intense communication possible and this commu-
nication is in the foundation of the history of
photography. Daguerreotypes, cartes de visite,
Kodak Brownie snapshots, and modern selfies
have contributed to the increasing democratiza-
tion of photography. Daguerreotypes were char-
acterized by an incredibly sharp mirrored image,
which needed the inclusion of an intermediary to
be produced. Cartes de visite were not enlarged,
therefore quite sharp and still needed an interme-
diary. The Kodak Brownie snapshots had the
same characteristics, but with a lower quality. In
the same way as daguerreotypes, carte de visite,
and snapshots, selfies have led to the mass diffu-
sion and democratization of the medium, but in all
the previous forms of photographic portraiture,
technical knowledge was a condicio sine qua
non. Selfies are accessible and free and raise ques-
tions of self-representation, society, community,
and identity. They all make possible to represent
the self and make us somehow immortal. Selfies
also introduce the new concept of web sharing and
publication. The image will be used not only in a
private context and made public. The introduction
of new technologies in portrait photography
changed the possible and alongside the positives
of democratization probably redirected its appli-
cations towards harmful consequences for the
modern user. Research shows that there is a neg-
ative impact on the psychological sphere of indi-
viduals and that there is a high risk of privacy
control. What seems to be a funny amusement
(shooting a selfie) can actually be transformed in
a tool related to power and domination. Are we
going to be or are we already part of the “selfie
sapiens”4 species?
Cross-References
▶ Aesthetics
▶ Creative Development
▶ Creativity
▶ Illusion and Art
▶ Imagery
▶ Imagination
▶ Inspiration
▶ Invention
▶ Possible in Visual Arts
▶ Semiotics
▶ Social Change
▶ Sociological Imagination
4
‘Selfie Sapiens’ (TedX Talks 2016) is a concept intro-
duced by Hollywood producer Niels Juul. In his TedX
Talk, Juul stresses the idea that, with the evolution of
technology, humans increasingly depend on the use of
social media. The young generation, he states, is not able
to reflect on the consequences the uncontrolled production
of selfies can imply.
Possible in Photography
References
AA, School of Architecture. (2017). The face and the body
– Mark Cousins. https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v¼UkraaawwqKs. Accessed 15 Aug 2020.
Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined communities: Reflections
on the origin and spread of nationalism. London:
Verso.
Barthes, R. (1977). Image, music, text. London: Fontana
Press.
Bate, D. (2016). Photography: The key concepts. London:
Bloomsbury.
Benjamin, W. (1935). The work of art in the age of
mechanical reproduction. Berlin: Schocken Books.
Benjamin, W. (2015). Piccola storia della fotografia.
Milano: Abscondita.
Berger, A. A. (2014). Media and communication research
methods. Los Angeles/London/New Delhi/Singapore/
Washington DC: SAGE.
Brus, T. (2017). Recent zones of portraiture: The selfie. The
European Journal of Life Writing., VI, 87–100.
Burke, P. (2001). Eyewitnessing: The uses of images as
historical evidence. London: Reaktion Books.
Coddington, R. S. (2016). Cardomania!: How the carte de
visite became the Facebook of the 1860s. Military
Images, 34(3), 12–17.
Codeluppi, V. (2007). La vetrinizzazione sociale. Torino:
Bollato Boringhieri.
Goffman, E. (1969). The presentation of self in everyday
life. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Houghton, D., Joinson, A., Caldwell, N., & Marder, B.
(2013). Tagger’s delight? Disclosure and liking behav-
iour in Facebook: The effects of sharing photographs
amongst multiple known social circles (Birmingham
Business School Discussion Paper Series). Birming-
ham: University of Birmingham
Joly, M. (2015). Introduction à l’analyse de l’image. Paris:
Armand Colin.
Katz, J. E., & Crocker, E. T. (2015). ‘Selfies and photo
messaging as visual conversation: Reports from the
United States, United Kingdom and China. Interna-
tional Journal of Communication, 9, 1861–1872.
Latour, B. (1990). Technology is society made durable.
The Sociological Review, 38(S1), 103–131.
Latour, B. (2005). Rassembling the social. Oxford/New
York: Oxford University Press.
Lester, P. M. (2014). Visual Communication: Images with
messages. Belmont: Wadsworth.
9
Mills, J. S., Musto, S., Williams, L., & Tiggemann, M.
(2018). “Selfie” harm: Effects on mood and body image
in young women. Body Image, 27, 86–92.
Newhall, B. (2009). The history of photography. New
York: The Museum of Modern Art.
Rose, G. (2001). Visual methodologies: An introduction to
the interpretation of visual materials. Los Angeles/
London/New Delhi/Singapore/Washington DC:
SAGE.
Scott, G. G., Boyle, E. A., Czerniawska, K., & Courtney, A.
(2018). Posting photos on Facebook: The impact of
narcissism, social anxiety, loneliness, and shyness. Per-
sonality and Individual Differences, 133(15), 67–72.
Sekula, A. (1986). The body and the archive. October, 39,
3–64.
Selfie. Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Web-
ster. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/
selfie. Accessed 15 Aug 2020.
Snow, D. A., & Anderson, L. (1987). Identity work among
the homeless: The verbal construction and avowal of
personal identities. American Journal of Sociology, 92
(6), 1336-1371.
Sorlin, P. (2001). I figli di Nadar. Il “secolo”
dell’immagine analogica. Torino: Einaudi.
Stallabrass, J. (2007). What’s in a face? Blankness and
significance in contemporary art photography. October,
122(fall 2007), 71–90.
Stefanone, M. A., Lackaff, D., & Rosen, D. (2011). Con-
tingencies of self-worth and social-networking-site
behavior. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Net-
working, 14, 41–49.
Suciu, P. (2019). A photo used to be worth a thousand
words, but thanks to social media photos have lost
their value. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/
petersuciu/2019/10/24/a-photo-used-to-be-worth-a-
thousand-words-but-thanks-to-social-media-photos-
have-lost-their-value/. Accessed 30 Aug 2020.
Taigman, Y., Yang, M., Ranzato, M., & Wolf, L. (2014).
DeepFace: Closing the gap to human-level perfor-
mance in face verification. Conference on Computer
Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). Columbus.
https://research.fb.com/publications/deepface-closing-
the-gap-to-human-level-performance-in-face-verifica
tion/. Accessed 28 Aug 2020.
TedX Talks. (2016). Selfie Sapiens | Niels Juul |
TEDxHollywood. [Video file]. Retrieved from https://
www.youtube.com/watch?v¼qB32zAnKxbo&
t¼1117s. Accessed 6 Sept 2020.
Yegulalp, S. (2012, May 11). Camera phones: A look back
and forward. Computerworld. Accessed 23 Aug 2020.