20 16
2
January
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Thanks to Dr Maya Oppenheimer, Sam Miles, Rahel Zoller, Tony and Jamie for supporting me through the writing and construction of this Thesis.
4
Distant Intimacy How Smart Phones Affect Intimacy in Relationships. Ruby Spencer SPE12353241 Words 5,371 Graduation Year 2016
Abstract This thesis will explore how Smart phones affect intimacy in relationships, specifically looking at three stages of a relationships exploring what contributes to online and offline intimacy. The methods I intend to use will be a naturalist observation approach, Case studies, and an interview to gain deeper understanding of my research question.
5
February
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
07 CO NT EN TS
Design Concept Keywords Introduction Observation First Date The Relationship Make or Break Conclusion References Bibliography
08 10 11 16 21 26 34 39 42 47
08 Design Concept
A dairy is an intimate object that is personal to many people. I wanted the design to contrast with the idea of being cyber connected through a smart phone. To do this I wanted to bring the reader into a physical space. Within this thesis, I draw upon issues such as smart phones changing the way we interact with each other, so the idea of using a raw material such as leather gives the reading a chance to experience intimacy by exploring the soft touch of leather, the smell of the paper and the different textures. The concept behind the layout provides the reader with a full diary experience. First of all, the front inside page represents connectivity through all the smart phones being connected together. This idea connects with my writing as through the thesis I am always looking at how connected our culture has become. Throughout the diary, these icons pop up to remind the reader that each concept is connected. The representation of one smart phone in red on the front cover, continues throughout the diary as the colour red suggests love, passion and fire. Throughout the diary the presence of the diary writer is shown through the hearts, circles and crosses on the month calendar in the colour red. A diary entry at the end of each section allows the reader to feel connected to the realness of the issues being discussed within the diary. Hand writing these entries also makes the diary raw. The diary entry will be from a females perceptive as I feel a personal connection to a dairy and for me it represents emotions and intimacy through writing your own thoughts and opinions. Presenting the images as Polaroids at the end of each section, explores the idea of rawness further. Finally to develop my idea of the diary I bench marked how people express intimacy and developed a mood board on the next page for the reader to understand my design thinking process.
KEY WORDS Intimacy, smart phones, Relationships, Connections, Technological-cultural
KEY TERMS Intimacy; physical intimacy, which comes from having a sexual relationship, which, one hopes, fosters the other kind of intimacy as well. Heterosexual; Someone having a sexual orientation to persons of the opposite sex. Smart phone; A mobile phone that performs many of the functions of a computer, typically having a touchscreen interface, Internet access, and an operating system capable of running downloaded apps.
10
11 Introduction
‘We seemed to be in the midst of an internet revolution with the developments of smart phones, we are entering an era of the enhanced digital connectivity.’ (Hoffman, Novak and Venkatesh, 2004) The way we interact with technology is starting to change the way we interact with loved ones. In the podcast note to self Sherry Turkle (Professor of the Social Studies of Science and Technology in the Program in Science, Technology, and Society) argues that ‘If we out source all of our emotional conversations to technology we lose out on empathy and intimacy’ (Note to self, 2015) Using this argument, this thesis will explore how smart phones affect intimacy in relationships. From Getting a date on an app to organising your wedding, smart phones have become the cyber cupid. Smart phone usage, technology and relationships have been explored in many different ways. However this thesis will look at smart phones in relation to intimacy and relationships. Technologies are ever changing and because of this journals, books and online publications are soon out of date. Based on this I will use both current and old material to create an up to date perspective on the surround arguments. Through this paper I am restricting my research and only looking at how smart phone use is affecting intimacy in Relationships. Previous studies have look at the overall issue with Technology and relationships however technology is a huge subject and will need to be explored in a lot of depth. Therefore, my findings will only consider smart phone technology and not consider other technologies couples use. This could be a limitation as couples may use other technologies, however for the purpose of this thesis I am only interested in smart phones. The literature sources I have used covers heterosexual, bisexual and gay perspectives and although some of these sources come from authors which have specific gender
identities my argument for this thesis will only explore the interaction of heterosexual couples and smart phones. The first smart phones came onto the market in the late 1990’s, offering features such as e-mail communication, text-based web-browsing, query keyboards and inbuilt cameras. The first smart phone as we know it today, with a HD touchscreen, countless apps and high-speed internet on the go, introduced in 2007 was the apple iPhone.’ (Techtrends.accenture.com, 2015). Now the revenue of smart phones is ‘$264.75bn and growing. ‘The pace of social change resulting from the diffusion of this technology , both in the united states and globally is by many accounts dramatic. In less than ten Years, the internet has become indispensable to many people in their daily lives.’ (Hoffman, Novak and Venkatesh, 2004 pg. 2) Eleven years after the ‘smart phone’ set on the market, our ways of connecting, living and sharing have become so easy through the dramatic changes of the technology revolution. A technological-cultural has formed and developed how we interact with each other on a intimate scales. Therefore my research question is worthwhile as smart phone use in relationships and the issues surrounding this is very current to the digital era we are living in. Considering the subject is current, within this thesis I will be able to use a variety of research methods which will benefit my research. Using both primary and secondary research throughout this thesis, I intend to explore and compare all information researched. With the increase of smart phone users over the past five years, this research will be widely accessible. Using secondary research such as online journals, books and articles I was able to contextualise my primary research and look at arguments from different points of view. First of all, I interviewed a women in her late 40’s to understand how she first communicated with her partner 25 years ago. This gave me an insight into how smart phones weren’t needed to better a relationship. I approached the interview unstructured and had a chat with her interviewee. I did this so that the interviewee would feel comfortable discussing about intimacy with her partner. One disadvantage of only interviewing one female would be that my research would be bias as I have only received the vies of one person. I future I would aim to interview more people with different sexual orientations. Then, I used case studies as primary research to develop my understanding around apps. By downloading ‘Couple app’ and ‘Tinder’ I was able to use these case studies to explore how these apps are used. My partner and I used ‘Couple app’ for 2 months to see if this app would benefit our relationship. Using the app first hand helped me form ideas around why relationships apps are created, and if they are any different to iMessage or a Text. Finally to develop my understanding of current issues surrounding intimacy in relationships I used a naturalistic observation. By observing relationships in a natural 12
environment I was able to see couples using there phones without them knowing I was watching. This method worked well as my subjects were unaware that I was observing them. This meant that they didn’t change there behaviour because they didn’t know they were being watched. To analyse data I used the note taking technique to write down anything that would particularly benefit my research. The following sections of this thesis is structured as the different stages of a relationships. First the observation section will give an insight into recent observations which will contextualise the next section which follows, The First Date. Within this section my research explore how relationships were formed in the past and now in the present considering how smart phones have impacted the way we meet potential partners.
March
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
April
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
16 Observation
I decide to observe smart phone users to understand who was contributing to the“$264.75bn revenue that smart phones companies are making.”(Facts, 2015) Using Naturalistic observation, I observed part of oxford street as this method gather information around my subject which helped me achieve an understanding of my audience in their natural environment. This research method worked particularly well in oxford street was the demographic of people was wide and I was able to note down many situations. I first discovered a happy couple in there 20’s sitting on a park bench staring into their phones not each other eyes, ‘silently absurd in digital content’. (Verjby, 2015) No one speaks a word to each other for the next 10 minutes whilst they scroll through their phones. Another Couple sitting in a Starbucks, as I obverse there behaviour both are looking bored sometimes interacting by looking at each others phones. They walk out hand in hand and carry on with their everyday lives. Smart phones are now being “praised for enabling brief messages of love and affection,”(McCormack, 2015) although have we now gone beyond that? American photographer Eric Pickersgill also draws upon the same idea of disconnect through smart phones. Similar to my findings Pickergill suggests that ‘our culture has an addiction to technology and hyper-connectivity’ (Bored Panda, 2015) The photographer was inspired by a chance encounter in a New York cafe, where a family were to engaged in their smart phones and didn’t talk to each other. ‘In each of his portrait, electronic devices have been edited out so that people stare at their hands, or the empty space between their hands, often ignoring beautiful surroundings or opportunities for human connection.’ (Mollman, 2015) Similarly a french artist visualises this obsessive and immersive relationship with smart phones through the series of digital manipulations titled ‘SUR-FAKE’. (designboom, 2015) 16
When developing his idea, Antoine Geiger ‘wanted to come back to the idea of fake identities, over-exposed, sucked by the digital gulf that breaks the relationship to reality,(Geiger, 2015) As when began to observe Oxford Street one of the busiest cities in the world, both artists work began to make more sense. So many couples around me were interacting so closely. However the interaction wasn’t with each other. They were interacting with their smart phones. Both Pickersgill and Geiger’s work was a reflection of the technological-culture we live in today. I started to question if what I had observed was a ‘reflection of the global reshaping of personal communications’ (Verjby, 2015) between two people who are together because of love? Considering my finding from my observation method, The world of smart phones is slowly changing the way we interact on our own and in the presence of others. “The technological revolution has inserted itself into a couples lives in inconspicuous ways, couples may not always be overly aware of the changes that have emerged in their relationship with the introduction of these technologies”. (M.Hertlein and L. C. Blumer, 2015) It could be argued that because smart phone technology is merging into our relationships, they have just become away of life. I believe that from this observation method and my understand so far of technology creeping into relationships. Smart phones will make relationships become even more disconnected. However online dating apps have made it easier than ever before to find a intimate partner. In the next section this thesis will look in-depth at dating applications, meeting new people and getting a date offline.
(Antoinegeiger.com, 2016)
(Ericpickersgill.com, 2016)
May
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
21 First Date
‘39% of dating now happens though mobile apps’ (Forbes.com, 2016) Tinder, bumble and Happn are just three of the many dating apps that can be used on a smart phone. The benefit of these apps, are that they can be used anywhere, anytime. Catering for everyone, from the busy professional to the university student. However Rune Vejby a modern media Analyst discussed how smart phones have now become a ‘shield we use to limit our exposure in potentially compromising situation’. (Verjby, 2015 Pg 11) By smart phone users shielding themselves, the intimacy between two people changes. Smart phone users are afraid to give any intimacy in the first place. This could lead to a negative impact on their long term relationships as the couple may continue to feel the need to limit intimacy, scared that something could go wrong. How do we encourage people to break down this shield, when everyone is connected by smart phones? In contrast to this Play Date London, brand themselves as company who provides dating with a difference. Taking away technology from the first stages of a relationship and putting people in a creative play experience introduces a way of people meeting face to face for the first time without feeling awkward. Similarly Sherry Turkle talks about the important of not losing face to face communication with each. She also argues that ‘The blurring of intimacy and solitude begins when one creates a profile on a social-networking site or a dating site.’ (Turkle, 2011) People are now able to hide behind their profiles where as Play Date London on the other hand achieves the complete opposite and provides an immersive experience. However It could be argued that having a smart phone to connect you with new people is a great way to meet people you wouldn’t normally meet. A study by Durex interviewed 30 people in relationships. These participants argued that technology and smart phones “are central to the organisation of romantic relationships’
(McCormack, 2015). These apps seem to be smart phone users support blankets. They are able to build reassurance through their phones and know they can always go back to the app, if their date didn’t go well. ‘Participants spoke about how they valued smart phones during the early stages of relationships, particularly for keeping in contact between dates’ (McCormack, 2015). Without smart phones we now are starting to question how we would even stay in contact with people and also how would we meet new people? This is one of the disadvantages of using smart phones at the first stages of relationships. We are becoming detached from face to face communication. K. Hertlein (Author of The Couple and Family Technology Framework) highlights that the difference between face to face (FTF) and computer-meditated communication. Herlien explores the idea that computer-meditated communication changes ‘self presentation, non-verbal relationships signals, and the development of rituals and sense of everydayness’. She suggests that the main difference ‘between FTF and CMC relationships is the extent to which on can edit ones representation.’ (M.Hertlein and L. C. Blumer, 2015). For example people are able to create perfect personas of themselves over there smart phones. They are deciding who they want to be and how they want to act. Sherry Turkle argues that ‘As this happens, we remake ourselves and our relationships with each other through our new intimacy with machines. People talk about web access on their BlackBerries as “the place for hope” in life, the place where loneliness can be defeated. The network is seductive. But if we are always on, we may deny ourselves the rewards of solitude” (Turkle, n.d.) At the digital (dis) connect conference I attended, Sam Miles Discussed Dating Apps, Privacy & Online Space. His work looked at how ‘the swiping action of Tinder, where you swipe right for yes and left for no, is a neat way of ensuring that you and your potential dates are attracted to each other’s first impressions. But is something lost in the way that we make these split-second decision, writing many of them off without ever giving ourselves the chance to meet, and learn more about them?’. (Miles, 2015) Technology has now created a culture of just creating a “profile” on an app which then represents you. You become an avatar, who can chose to represent themselves in any way they wish. An interview on surrounding issues of tinder and Gender Identity looked at how people like to represent themselves. One Women expressed that ‘her aim on tinder, was to show photo’s that make her look like she always has a good time and doesn’t take herself too seriously.’ (Thought Catalog, 2013) However Sam Miles also suggested that for ‘gay men, locative networks including Grindr, Hornet and Tinder have proven popular for both socialisation and cruising.’ Similarly MD Johnson mentions that “using hook up apps or websites to find a potential mate, any stigma has largely evaporated.’ (Johnson, 2015) His book provokes new perspective, as he is a gay practiced divorce lawyer living in San Francisco reporting how using Grindr has helped him through his life meeting new men. He suggest that social media is breaking down monogamy and traditional 22
relationships by giving people so many choice and so much power to flirt.’ (Johnson, 2015 Pg 40) Smart phones have made it so easy for our culture to be able to connect with anyone you want to. Nowadays no one would think about a blind date as there first option? An interviewee discussed how she meet her husband of 25 years on a blind date set up by there mutual friends. She said “At the first stage of our relationship we would use the house phone to contact each other, although our relationship has adapted to smart phones. 25 years on and we both have iphones and can communicate without each other whenever we want, I feel closers than ever to my husband now”. Here is an example of how smart phones were not needed at the start of a relationships however now it makes their relationship feel more intimate as they can talk to each other whenever they like. On the other hand Ali Rachel Pearl recent discussed in the NY times “On tinder, Off sex. She explains how she tried to move on from a phase of my life of having no sex by joining Tinder. Ali Rachel received a lot of attention with many people commenting on how technology is reducing intimacy through dating apps. One comment discussed that “Technology has reduced our most intimate experience of falling in love to window shopping. Fate and chance have been replaced by scrolling and swiping. The reason most people have terrible date stories from Tinder is because we are so quick to judge and to dismiss the people we meet without ever getting to know them.” (Pearl, 2015) However it is not just dating apps that may be detaching us from intimate relationships. The ‘Invisible Boyfriend/Girlfriend app, gives you the ability to design and build a believable social partner who is everything you want and is always available to talk, whenever you want.’ (Invisibleboyfriend, 2016) They help people avoid the social stigma of being single by giving them credible, social proof they’re in a relationship. This make believe partner is now blurring the lines between virtual and online reality. We can now be intimate with an app because it is showing intimacy back. When looking on their website one of the frequently asked questions was will I love him? There response back was “we would advise against falling in love with your invisible partner. You deserve the love of a real person”. Our culture has become so dependant on having a boyfriend/girlfriend that people are now feeling the pressure to prove to their friends and family they aren’t strange. Sherry Turkle argues that ‘Technology is seductive when what it offers meets our human vulnerabilities and as it turns out, we are very vulnerable indeed. We are lonely but fearful of intimacy. Digital connections and the sociable robot may offer the illusion of companionship without the demands of friendship. Our networked life allows us to hide from each other, even as we are tethered to each other.’ (Turkle, n.d, 2011) Apps are being designed to help us with intimacy yet it seems that meeting partners online is cutting out all intimacy, through designing your own partner to swiping left or right there seems to be something missing in between, which is interacting with a person face to face and feeling intimate by being present. Not through a smart phone. 23
June
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
26 The Relationship
Within less than a decade a new infrastructure of online sociality has emerged, penetrating every fibre of culture today. (Dijck, 2013) Similarly (M.D.Johnson, 2015) argues that our lives are changing fast. The way we do everything is being impacted by technology and the modern age. Our relationships are no different. They’re evolving just like everything else around us, change to fit the modern world of technology. Considering how relationships were formed previously and sustained presmartphone is important to consider when understand how technology has impacted todays relationships. It is clear to see that both authors suggest that technology is rapidly changing how relationships that are formed and how relationships and kept in todays technology era. ‘Were leaving behind the linear paring of man and wife, and growing into a ‘multilayered structure,’ (MD Johnson, 2015) Johnsons theory of relationships in todays digital world is important to consider as he argues that the traditional linear structure where relationships were formed either through work, friends or family ‘required the partners to draw all their emotional support from each other.’ (Johnson, 2015) In contrast he suggest that the Multilayer relationship structure which was developed through technology has formed the terms ‘Fuck buddies, friends with benefits, and close friends’. (Johnson, 2015) Nowadays relationships are much more open with dating apps allowing users to meet people outside there social groups, giving people more options of how intimate they want to be. He argues that “the exclusive investment of emotional and sexual intimacy in one person doesn’t work in the modern age of technology.’ (Johnson, 2015). However in contrast to this statement “the language of social media” argues that ‘the more that mobile phones with internet access and smart phones become embedded in peoples everyday lives, the more people have access to social media and
thus the ‘full-time intimacy community’ (Nakajima et 1999 as cited in Seargeant and Tagg, 2014). It is clear that the definition of intimacy has changed, intimacy is now obscure, and is formed and felt in different ways. There is no doubt that technology has allowed relationships to develop, from sending a text saying “How’s your day” to feeling each others heartbeats. Smart phones seem to be the most common form of communication in relationships. But are smart phones taking away the human connection we have in relationships? A recent development “pillow talks” is a great example of how technology is being used to better intimacy. “Each person in the relationship has a wristband they wear to bed at night and a small speaker which you place under your pillow. The wristband picks up your real time heartbeat and transmits it via smart phone app to the other person’s pillow. Placing your head on your own pillow enables you to hear the real time heartbeat of your loved one. The result is an intimate interaction between two people, regardless of the distance between them.”(Little Riot, 2015) This product works well as it can be used for long distance relationships. Relationships are now learning to use technology as a form of intimacy as it has the connection aspect of the relationships. Pillow talks takes the distance away from a relationship and it could be argued that technology intimacy is better than no intimacy. Here the smart phone is only being used as the connection, the interactive side of the product is what is connecting these relationships. However Sherry Turtle questions ‘Does virtual intimacy degrade our experience of the other kind and, indeed, of all encounters, of any kind? The blurring of intimacy and solitude may reach its starkest expression when a robot is proposed as a romantic partner’ (Turkle, n.d pg. 12) This links back to the idea of creating an invisible girlfriend and boyfriend in the previous section. However this app creates virtual intimacy, we are able to see, feel, smell and touch without being in the same room as each other. Although experts say that 80% of communication is really transmitted through body language and expression. All of this is lost over text or spoken conversation. (Plus, 2010) Hyper personal CMC theory draws upon this by looking at ‘how users construct what they want to represent through text based-mediums, thereby increasing perceived intimacy.’ (M.Hertlein and L. C. Blumer, 2015) On the other hand with the development of Face time allows couples to experience intimacy and connection through a video chat. Media richness theory suggests that ‘communication occurs more quickly, with greater clarity and results in better performance on certain tasks as the electronic media used provides immediate feedback, personalised messages and can better estimate social cues’ (M.Hertlein and L. C. Blumer, 2015) This could be applied to couples who use face time as Kathrine Hertlein argues that couples who use ‘FaceTime on their smart phone or other video conference technologies to communicate would have an advantage over couples that use text based communication methods.’ (M.Hertlein and L. C. Blumer, 2015) This could be because FaceTime enables relationships to communicate more quickly and efficiently. Where as couples who use texting instead are using a more 27
July
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
intimate technology, could feel disconnected to the physical world. In a recent study 21% of cell owners or internet users in a committed relationship have felt closer to their spouse or partner because of exchanges they had online or via text message. (Lenhart and Duggan, 2014) communicating with partners through FaceTime and pillow talks, creates a new platforms of intimacy in the new technological-culture. Although technology in relationships can be a distraction, it is clear to see that technology has become one of the most important parts of the relationship. However in the next section of this thesis I will begin to explore why technology is coming between relationships. Here I will begin to form a conclusion around my findings.
(Payload.cargocollective.com, 2016)
(Apple.com, 2016)
August
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
September
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
34 Make or Break
‘Whether or not our devices are in use, without them we feel disconnected, adrift. Gradually, we come to see our online lives as life itself. Technology reshapes the landscape of our emotional lives, but is it offering the lives we want to lead?’ ( Turkle, 2004 pg.16) Couples are starting to feel the impact of smart phones on their relationships and many people are starting to question whether technology really is reshaping everything we do. In the United States, a Pew Research Centre study found that 25 percent of cell phone owners in a marriage or partnership have felt their partner was distracted by their cell phone when they were together. ‘Eight percent have had an argument with their partner about the amount of time one of them was spending online.’ (Lenhart and Duggan, 2014) There are many issues that emerge when talking about the use of smart phones and relationships. There is now an app to even help you with a break up. 7 Steps To A Better Break-Up coaches people who are going through a break up designed to help you get through it. Sara Davison (CEO) of the break up app, doesn’t position the app as a be-all and end-all solution, it’s a tool to help make things just a little easier Davison explains, “With simple stages to focus on, users will able to gain more perspective on their individual situation and feelings, and help prepare them for what is to come, enabling them to regain some control which can help result in a more amicable outcome for all involved.” (Sarnia Observer, 2016) However again smart phones are being used instead of being mindful of oneself and relying on the smart phone to make you feel better. Intimacy both sexual and emotional can be hard to develop and keep when your smart phones are a constant distraction. The Naturalistic observation method allowed me to witness the barriers and distractions between couples. Relationships are feeling the pressure of keeping up with constant online communication and being in the
present moment with their loved ones. Even restaurants have noticed the disconnect smart phones are bringing to relationships and intimacy. A restaurant in owner in Iowa, is offering a discount to customers who give up their cell phones while dining. Sneaky’s Chicken owner Dave Ferris gives diners 10 percent off their meals on Wednesday evenings for simply handing over their phone and engaging in conversation with each other instead. To contextualise this example Sherry Turkle uses the study of “the silent phone.” She explains that even when putting a phone on the table between two people, the quality of the conversation changes. The study shows that the participants feel less emotionally connected to each other. Having a phone on the table is already setting the scene for interruption. However using a smart phone has become the social norm, and the extensive use to smart phones will continue to grow. The Durex research journal stresses that the extensive use of smart phones in relationships comes at a cost. Although smart phones are a good use of communication when couples aren’t together. Couples are still using their smart phones when they are together. For some Durex participants, ‘while the majority valued technology in their lives, they still expressed frustration at the tensions it caused in their relationships. Whether it was their partners spending time and money on smart phone apps, prioritising smart phones above communication in the home, or encroaching onto sexual activity and bedroom routines’ (Durex, 2015)participants spoke of the negative effects that smart phones were having on their relationships. Smart phones are changing behaviours of relationships and changing the way we are mindful and present in the moment. Similarly Sherry Turkle contextualise the Durex argument, She states that ‘relating to others through email, texting, and online chats provides at best the illusion of a real relationship and at worst an attachment to a machine rather than a person. However from the previous section pillow talks shows a good example of how the illusion of feeling intimate through technology is working for many long distance relationships. One user quoted ‘ I love it. It feels so human... Like I’m lying with my head on his chest.’ — Jessica, 22, Chicago. Technology is detached us from the physical world as we are craving these digital experiences to feel intimate. Digital communication and its lack of prominent face-to-face contact is shaping the new relationship.
(Grubstreet.com, 2016)
(bloximage, 2016)
October
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
39 Conclusion
Smart phones have a huge impact on each stage of the relationship. Smart phones impact the way relationships are started, consolidated and maintained. Through out this thesis I have drawn upon different ways in which intimacy is changing. However what I found difficult about this thesis is that to me intimacy isn’t an object or a set feeling, and different people would describe intimacy in different ways. Although in the first chapter I talk about how smart phones are being praised for connecting people, this is quickly contrasted by my observations of oxford street. From this thesis I have looked at smart phone from both sides of the argument however with the addicted smart phone culture it is easy to say that smart phones are definitely changing the way we interact in relationships. Both Eric Prickergill and Antonie Geiger explore this idea through their artwork. The big disconnect is portrayed through their photography and really grasps the ideas of everyone always looking down at their smart phones. Furthermore links between both artist’s work and Sherry Turtles arguments around how disconnected our culture has become through smart phones. From my research I can see that smart phones have become an easier platform for relationships to share intimacy. Lot of apps on smart phones discussed in the girlfriend/boyfriend section of this thesis explore the advantages and disadvantages of connection through smart phones. I believe that smart phones have become additive, by creating the ‘feeling” of intimacy, they now create the illusion of intimacy through a screen which has been integrated into our daily lives. Smart phones have therefore changes the idea of intimacy, no longer do you have to be present to feel intimate. However some would argue its just a different kind of intimacy.
November
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
42 References
Antoinegeiger.com, (2015). antoine geiger. [online] Available at: http://antoinegeiger.com/filter/photo/SUR-FAKE [Accessed 10 Dec. 2015]. Bored Panda, (2015). Removed: Photographer Removes Phones From His Photos To Show How Terribly Addicted We’ve Become. [online] Available at: http://www. boredpanda.com/portraits-holding-devices-removed-eric-pickersgill/ [Accessed 4 Nov. 2015]. Davenport, B. (2013). How smart phones Could Be Ruining Your Relationship. [online] Live Bold and Bloom. Available at: http://liveboldandbloom.com/10/relationships/how-smartphones-could-be-ruining-your-relationship [Accessed 10 Dec. 2015]. Davison, S. (2015). Expert Spotlight: Sara Davison – The Divorce Expert. [online] APCTC. Available at: http://apctc.com/expert-spotlight-sara-davison/ [Accessed 17 Dec. 2015]. designboom | architecture & design magazine, (2015). SUR-FAKE series shows faces sucked by smart phones and screens. [online] Available at: http://www.designboom.com/art/antoine-geiger-surfake-sucked-faces-smartphones-11-11-2015/ [Accessed 10 Dec. 2015]. Dijck, J. (2013). The culture of connectivity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Accessed 14 Nov 2015]. Facts, S. (2015). Topic: smart phones. [online] www.statista.com. Available at:
http://www.statista.com/topics/840/smart phones/ [Accessed 20 Oct. 2015]. Geiger, A. (2015). Sur-face. [online] Available at: http://files.cargocollective. com/440813/SUR-FAKE--translated-.pdf [Accessed 10 Dec. 2015]. Hoffman, D., Novak, T. and Venkatesh, A. (2004). Has the Internet become indispensable?. Communications of the ACM, 47(7), pp.37-42. [Accessed 14 Nov 2015]. Invisibleboyfriend, (2016). invisibleboyfriend. [online] Available at: https://invisibleboyfriend.com [Accessed 5 Jan. 2016]. Johnson, M. (2015). Looking? Technology impacts on modern relationships. Usa: Dog Tag Books, inc. [Accessed 19 Sept. 2015]. Karahassan, P. (2015). How Technology is Changing Dating. [online] PsychAlive. Available at: http://www.psychalive.org/how-technology-is-changing-dating/ [Accessed 4 Nov. 2015]. Koulouris, C. (2013). The Pros and Cons of Tinder Dating App | TheBlot. [online] TheBlot Magazine. Available at: http://www.theblot.com/tinder-new-way-onlinedating-based-looks-7712229 [Accessed 5 Nov. 2015]. Lenhart, A. and Duggan, M. (2014). Couples, the Internet, and Social Media. [online] Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech. Available at: http://www. pewinternet.org/2014/02/11/couples-the-internet-and-social-media/ [Accessed 10 Dec. 2015]. Little Riot, (2015). Pillow Talk. [online] Available at: http://www.littleriot.com/pillow-talk/ [Accessed 10 Nov. 2015]. M.Hertlein, K. and L. C. Blumer, M. (2015). The couple and family technology framework- Intimate relationships in a digital age. UK: Rouledge. Mail Online, (2014). Are you ‘in love’ with your smart phone?. [online] Available at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2862432/Are-love-SMARTPHONE-75-women-admit-devices-ruining-relationships.html [Accessed 10 Nov. 2015]. McCormack, M. (2015). The Role of smart phones and Technology in Sexual and Romantic Lives. [online] Durham University. Available at: http://dro.dur. ac.uk/14770/2/14770S.pdf?DDD34+dvmq56 [Accessed 4 Nov. 2015]. Miles, S. (2015). Conference- Royal Academy Lates: Digital (Dis)connections. ‘Dating Apps, Privacy & Online Space.’ October 2015. Miles, S. (2015). RA talk: Dating apps, Privacy and Online Space. 43
Mollman, S. (2015). A Photographer Captures How Cellphones Isolate Humans in ‘Removed’. [online] The Atlantic. Available at: http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2015/10/a-photographers-lonely-iphone-less-world/410479/ [Accessed 4 Nov. 2015]. News.byu.edu, (2015). Daily “technoference” hurting relationships, study finds. [online] Available at: http://news.byu.edu/archive14-dec-technoference.aspx [Accessed 10 Nov. 2015]. Note to self, (2015). Bonus: Even a silent phone disconnects us. Bonus: Even a silent phone disconnects us. Pearl, A. (2015). On Tinder, Off Sex. [online] Nytimes.com. Available at: http:// www.nytimes.com/2015/10/18/fashion/on-tinder-off-sex.html?_r=0 [Accessed 15 Dec. 2015]. Plus, G. (2010). FaceTime helping couples keep "in touch". [online] iMore. Available at: http://www.imore.com/facetime-helping-couples-keep-in-touch [Accessed 13 Nov. 2015]. Safronova, V. (2015). Can Sex Be Detached From Love? Readers Offer Their Thoughts. [online] Nytimes.com. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/19/style/can-sex-be-detached-from-love.html [Accessed 10 Nov. 2015]. Safronova, V. (2015). Can Sex Be Detached From Love? Readers Offer Their Thoughts. [online] Nytimes.com. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/19/style/can-sex-be-detached-from-love.html [Accessed 10 Nov. 2015]. Sarnia Observer, (2015). Surviving a breakup with the help of an app. [online] Available at: http://www.theobserver.ca/2015/03/11/surviving-a-breakup-with-the-helpof-an-app [Accessed 18 Dec. 2015]. Seargeant, P. and Tagg, C. (2014). The language of social media. UK: Palgave macmillian, p.191. Sherry Turkle (Special), (2015). Even silent phones dissconnect us. Note to self podcast. Sarnia Observer, (2016). Surviving a breakup with the help of an app. [online] Available at: http://www.theobserver.ca/2015/03/11/surviving-a-breakup-with-the-helpof-an-app [Accessed 3 Jan. 2016]. 44
Techtrends.accenture.com, (2015). Business Technology Trends Report 2015 - Accenture. [online] Available at: http://techtrends.accenture.com/us-en/business-technology-trends-report.html [Accessed 20 Oct. 2015]. Turkle, S. (2013). Alone Together. USA: Basic Books; First Trade Paper Edition edition (7 Feb. 2013). Thought Catalog, (2013). Which Look Gets The Most Tinder Matches?. [online] Available at: http://thoughtcatalog.com/kara-nesvig/2013/09/which-look-gets-themost-tinder-matches/ [Accessed 3 Jan. 2016]. VERJBY, R. (2015). TEXTING IN SICK. United states: The gravitate research group. Vocabulary.com, (2015). intimacy - Dictionary Definition. [online] Available at: http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/intimacy [Accessed 14 Dec. 2015]. YouTube, (2015). Sherry Turkle: “Reclaiming Conversation: The Power of Talk in a Digital Age”. [online] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=DyvJ6mqfJ6o [Accessed 15 Dec. 2015]. YouTube, (2015). Sherry Turkle: Connected, but alone?. [online] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7Xr3AsBEK4 [Accessed 15 Dec. 2015]. YouTube, (2015). Sherry Turkle: Conversation on Modern Romance | Talks at Google. [online] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69FXjBPG7F4 [Accessed 15 Dec. 2015].
December
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
47 Bibliography
A smart phone and its teenagers. (2015). Note to self podcast. [Accessed 10 Dec. 2015]. Antoinegeiger.com, (2015). antoine geiger. [online] Available at: http://antoinegeiger.com/filter/photo/SUR-FAKE [Accessed 10 Dec. 2015]. Bored Panda, (2015). Removed: Photographer Removes Phones From His Photos To Show How Terribly Addicted We’ve Become. [online] Available at: http://www. boredpanda.com/portraits-holding-devices-removed-eric-pickersgill/ [Accessed 4 Nov. 2015]. Can you have a whole relationship through Texts?. (2015). Note to self podcast. Davenport, B. (2013). How smart phones Could Be Ruining Your Relationship. [online] Live Bold and Bloom. Available at: http://liveboldandbloom.com/10/relationships/how-smartphones-could-be-ruining-your-relationship [Accessed 10 Dec. 2015]. Davison, S. (2015). Expert Spotlight: Sara Davison – The Divorce Expert. [online] APCTC. Available at: http://apctc.com/expert-spotlight-sara-davison/ [Accessed 17 Dec. 2015]. designboom | architecture & design magazine, (2015). SUR-FAKE series shows faces sucked by smart phones and screens. [online] Available at: http://www.designboom.com/art/antoine-geiger-surfake-sucked-faces-smartphones-11-11-2015/ [Accessed 10 Dec. 2015]. Dijck, J. (2013). The culture of connectivity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Facts, S. (2015). Topic: smart phones. [online] www.statista.com. Available at: http://www.statista.com/topics/840/smart phones/ [Accessed 20 Oct. 2015]. Geiger, A. (2015). Sur-face. [online] Available at: http://files.cargocollective. com/440813/SUR-FAKE--translated-.pdf [Accessed 10 Dec. 2015]. Hoffman, D., Novak, T. and Venkatesh, A. (2004). Has the Internet become indispensable?. Communications of the ACM, 47(7), pp.37-42.
Invisibleboyfriend, (2016). invisibleboyfriend. [online] Available at: https://invisibleboyfriend.com [Accessed 5 Jan. 2016]. Johnson, M. (2015). Looking? Technology impacts on modern relationships. Usa: Dog Tag Books, inc. Just a little nicer- Compassion. (2015). Ted radio Hour Podcast. Karahassan, P. (2015). How Technology is Changing Dating. [online] PsychAlive. Available at: http://www.psychalive.org/how-technology-is-changing-dating/ [Accessed 4 Nov. 2015]. Koulouris, C. (2013). The Pros and Cons of Tinder Dating App | TheBlot. [online] TheBlot Magazine. Available at: http://www.theblot.com/tinder-new-way-onlinedating-based-looks-7712229 [Accessed 5 Nov. 2015]. Lenhart, A. and Duggan, M. (2014). Couples, the Internet, and Social Media. [online] Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech. Available at: http://www. pewinternet.org/2014/02/11/couples-the-internet-and-social-media/ [Accessed 10 Dec. 2015]. Little Riot, (2015). Pillow Talk. [online] Available at: http://www.littleriot.com/pillow-talk/ [Accessed 10 Nov. 2015]. Lucas, E. (n.d.). Cyberphobia. M.Hertlein, K. and L. C. Blumer, M. (2015). The couple and family technology framework- Intimate relationships in a digital age. UK: Rouledge. Macleod, M. (2015). Thumbs Up: How to Survive Without Your smart phone for 24 Hours. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform: England. Mail Online, (2014). Are you ‘in love’ with your smart phone?. [online] Available at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2862432/Are-love-SMARTPHONE-75-women-admit-devices-ruining-relationships.html [Accessed 10 Nov. 2015]. McCormack, M. (2015). The Role of smart phones and Technology in Sexual and Romantic Lives. [online] Durham University. Available at: http://dro.dur. ac.uk/14770/2/14770S.pdf?DDD34+dvmq56 [Accessed 4 Nov. 2015]. Miles, S. (2015). Conference- Royal Academy Lates: Digital (Dis)connections. ‘Dating Apps, Privacy & Online Space.’ October 2015. Miles, S. (2015). RA talk: Dating apps, Privacy and Online Space. Mollman, S. (2015). A Photographer Captures How Cellphones Isolate Humans in ‘Removed’. [online] The Atlantic. Available at: http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2015/10/a-photographers-lonely-iphone-less-world/410479/ [Accessed 4 Nov. 2015]. News.byu.edu, (2015). . [online] Available at: http://news.byu.edu/archive14-dectechnoference.aspx [Accessed 10 Nov. 2015]. Note to self, (2015). Bonus: Even a silent phone disconnects us. Bonus: Even a silent phone disconnects us. Pearl, A. (2015). On Tinder, Off Sex. [online] Nytimes.com. Available at: http:// www.nytimes.com/2015/10/18/fashion/on-tinder-off-sex.html?_r=0 [Accessed 15 Dec. 2015]. Plus, G. (2010). FaceTime helping couples keep "in touch". [online] iMore. Available at: http://www.imore.com/facetime-helping-couples-keep-in-touch 48
[Accessed 13 Nov. 2015]. Safronova, V. (2015). Can Sex Be Detached From Love? Readers Offer Their Thoughts. [online] Nytimes.com. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/19/style/can-sex-be-detached-from-love.html [Accessed 10 Nov. 2015]. Safronova, V. (2015). Can Sex Be Detached From Love? Readers Offer Their Thoughts. [online] Nytimes.com. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/19/style/can-sex-be-detached-from-love.html [Accessed 10 Nov. 2015]. Sarnia Observer, (2015). Surviving a breakup with the help of an app. [online] Available at: http://www.theobserver.ca/2015/03/11/surviving-a-breakup-with-the-helpof-an-app [Accessed 18 Dec. 2015]. Seargeant, P. and Tagg, C. (2014). The language of social media. UK: Palgave macmillian, p.191. sherry Turkle (Special), (2015). Even silent phones dissconnect us. Note to self podcast. Techtrends.accenture.com, (2015). Business Technology Trends Report 2015 - Accenture. [online] Available at: http://techtrends.accenture.com/us-en/business-technology-trends-report.html [Accessed 20 Oct. 2015]. Thompson, C. (n.d.). Smarter than you think. Turkle, S. (2011). Alone Together. Newyork: Basic Books, p.12. Thought Catalog, (2013). Which Look Gets The Most Tinder Matches?. [online] Available at: http://thoughtcatalog.com/kara-nesvig/2013/09/which-look-gets-themost-tinder-matches/ [Accessed 3 Jan. 2016]. VERJBY, R. (2015). TEXTING IN SICK. United states: The gravitate research group. Vocabulary.com, (2015). intimacy - Dictionary Definition. [online] Available at: http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/intimacy [Accessed 14 Dec. 2015]. YouTube, (2015). Sherry Turkle: “Reclaiming Conversation: The Power of Talk in a Digital Age�. [online] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=DyvJ6mqfJ6o [Accessed 15 Dec. 2015]. YouTube, (2015). Sherry Turkle: Connected, but alone?. [online] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7Xr3AsBEK4 [Accessed 15 Dec. 2015]. YouTube, (2015). Sherry Turkle: Conversation on Modern Romance | Talks at Google. [online] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69FXjBPG7F4 [Accessed 15 Dec. 2015].
49
50 Image Reference Antoinegeiger.com, (2016). Antoine geiger. [online] Available at: http://antoinegeiger.com/filter/photo/SUR-FAKE [Accessed 5 Jan. 2016]. Apple.com, (2016). Apple (United Kingdom) - FaceTime - Make video calls from your Mac.. [online] Available at: http://www.apple.com/uk/mac/facetime/ [Accessed 10 Jan. 2016]. bloximages, (2016). Phone in a box. [online] Available at: http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/siouxcityjournal.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/7/ f1/7f17bf42-6118-508e-8244-5847b58ac7d2/545297dec35dc.preview-620.jpg [Accessed 9 Jan. 2016]. Ericpickersgill.com, (2016). Eric Pickersgill. [online] Available at: http://ericpickersgill.com [Accessed 5 Jan. 2016]. Grubstreet.com, (2016). Bowl an Phone. [online] Available at: http://www.grubstreet.com [Accessed 9 Jan. 2016]. Payload.cargocollective.com, (2016). [online] Available at: http://payload.cargocollective.com/1/0/11201/138095/Pillow%20Talk%20smaller_860.jpg [Accessed 5 Jan. 2016]. Uk.pinterest.com, (2016). diary ideas (Design Concept). [online] Available at: https://uk.pinterest.com/search/pins/?q=diary%20ideas&rs=typed&term_ meta%5B%5D=diary%7Ctyped&term_meta%5B%5D=ideas%7Ctyped [Accessed 4 Jan. 2016]. Uk.pinterest.com, (2016). Phone Diary Holder (Design Concept). [online] Available at: https:/uk.pinterest.com/pin/386324474260717272/ [Accessed 4 Jan. 2016].
51
RUBY SPENCER