Since the late 1980s, the so called “new technologies” began a process of massification which defined the development of the media. With technological development, the public had access to a new way of understanding the transmission of information; not just young people or lovers of technology but now all individuals in society can read, complement and even create their own media. Every day, individuals and communities propose and access information that describes, explains and analyzes political, social, economic and cultural events.
The media are the physical realization of the need to relate to each other. Through them are describe situations and problems of our reality and youth in general is the one that makes use of its disseminators benefits.
So far so good, but young people of this time are so pleased with themselves, they consider that expose their thinking and their taste is enough to be someone, before issuing an opinion they don’t need to learn or investigate in depth, do not need a filter through which they pass their opinions to see if they are sensible ideas or not.
They are young people from a fairly affluent middle class and their lives have become fairy tales. They have fixed all their problems. They only have to expose how happy they are. There is not a criterion for opinion, it is enough to have a spark and make them viral in the web. The subjective condition that helps us make a choice and holds a value judgment is gone.
Today things are not what they are, or valuable in themselves, nor by the effect they caused when one sees them, but they acquire status by where they are located or by the social wrapper around them. So one thing is what it is, in relation to what the environment or the corresponding official authority decides to define it as such.
That environment or official authority are shaped by presumed experts, which in this case defined that any waste can be something if it is framed by the official, being it a portal, a receptacle, an event, or any street event captured in a Smartphone. At the end our individual criterion has been completely subjugated to an external official authority. Things are not because we are moved, because they invite us to reflection or because they say something to us as individuals. They are something because they tell us they are and because they tell us where they can be considered as such. We are being denied any possibility of definition of our environment and our world at the individual level.
This mechanism of surrender to the official authority, is extrapolated to almost all our social activities and has been there for some time. There exist such as many architectural platforms in which a building for the mere fact of being there has become architecture, but if someone also analyze the facades, the plans and sections or the context in which it was built, surely will take a big disappointment. It is the same mechanism that tells us what the majority do must be imitated because it is ‘fashionable’ or ‘trend’. The basic mechanism of obedience and cancellation of our own judgment is very similar in all cases.
It is an automatism that comes from the daily contact with the ‘smart technology’ that requires us to react at speed. That does not give us time to analyze, rethink, deepen and finally invent and create and that only conditions us to use our wonderful experience.
Making things for oneself makes the ideas more clear. When someone does things for himself he understands that one is not as smart as he thought.
Seeing things does not teach anything, seeing only sharpens intelligence and taste.