Sunday 12th April 2026
Blog Page 1106

Web Series World – The Guild

0

So in “preparation” for this blog I came across a YouTube video called ‘the top ten web series of all time’. Inevitably I had to watch it, and to my absolutely shock I realised I had not watched a single one mentioned. I am only on my second blog of this series and so far I feel I have terribly under represented the scope and spectrum of the medium. In a rather desperate attempt to catch up on years of neglect, I decided to dive in and pretty much blitzed an entire Web Series this week. All six seasons. You may now be wondering; doesn’t this girl go to Oxford? Isn’t she meant to be working?

Well yes. And stop trying to freak me out, imaginary readership.

So what was this, for which I felt the need to delay my three essays? A fantastic series called ‘The Guild’.

Running since 2007, this comedy web series was originally supported by fans through PayPal before Kickstarter was even a thing. Seasons 2-5 were supported by Xbox, which affronts my strong proletariat inclinations a little, but doesn’t ultimately detract from it being a great show. It is now also available on Netflix, Hulu and has its own website watchtheguild.com. According to the website it has over 300 million views.

So what is it actually about?

The Guild explores the lives of a group of gamers and the effect of these games on their day to day lives and relationships. It presents interaction through video games in a positive if self-deprecating light, while remaining very honest about the impact such games and communities can have in real life. The series begins when one of the players (Zaboo) is offline for a whole 39 hours and all the other Guild members begin to freak out. Zaboo turns up a little while later at one of the other player’s houses (Codex), having tracked down her address and building plans online. And so the online becomes physical and Zaboo, having been misled by casual online flirting, attempts to woo the woman of his dreams. Lolz and nerdiness follow. It’s great light entertainment and each episode being approximately 8 minutes each, it is very easy to get hooked. Which happened. And here I am, still fangirling a week later when I really should be writing essays.

The Guild is not a group you should ever go to for help on such matters of procrastination. They built a series pretty much on just that.

Oxford to hold referendum on NUS membership

4

There will be a referendum on Oxford’s affiliation to the NUS this term following the passing of a motion at OUSU Council at evening.

After nearly three hours, the motion passed by secret ballot with 67 members voting in favour of the motion, 56 opposing and three abstaining. The referendum will happen before the end of sixth week.

After being moved to the top of the agenda for the meeting, the motion was hotly contested, undergoing multiple amendments and changes before the final vote was conducted.

“I think we should have enough respect for the student body to have them make the decision themselves,” said David Klemperer, a member of the Oh Well, Alright Then slate that proposed and backed the motion.

Issues of funding dominated the early debate, with many questioning how the campaigns would be funded. Many, including elected Sabbatical officer Eden Bailey, called into question the ability of liberation movements to adequately campaign for NUS membership in the short time frame and with the limited resources available. They were especially concerned that those who needed the NUS the most were those with the least time to campaign.

Klemperer brushed off these concerns, saying, “The amount of time between now and 6th week is enough that we can easily have a referendum.”

At one point Klemperer was called a liar as a consequence of some of the notes included in the motion he brought to Council. Particular concern was expressed at the points made about the motions discussed to monitor bullying on anonymous social messaging at the NUS Conference in Brighton last week. This part of the motion was later removed as were parts concerning NUS President-elect Malia Bouattia’s past comments.

The election of Malia Bouattia as NUS President last week triggered calls for Oxford to disaffiliate from the NUS
The election of Malia Bouattia as NUS President last week triggered calls for Oxford to disaffiliate from the NUS

The first speaker in opposition to the referendum called it a “political vendetta against the NUS president-elect and the NUS itself” from the members of Oh Well, Alright Then, while calling to question issues of distraction for those who have exams at the end of the term and a lack of time to campaign.

The debate often veered away from whether to have a referendum on to the relative merits of the NUS itself, which members of the Council were quick to point out in an attempt to steer the debate back on course.

OUSU President Becky Howe said she was proud members of the Council had fought for the liberation campaigns, but would obviously put her all behind the Council’s decision.

After nearly three hours, the motion passed via secret ballot with 67 voting in favour of a referendum, 56 voting against and three abstaining.

Dissident philosopher protests outside Balliol

0

Julius Tomin, a well-known Czech political philosopher and classical scholar, protested today for the third day on Broad Street, claiming that Oxford academics were suppressing his radical reinterpretation of Plato and the Western tradition. Tomin, 77, has slept on the street outside Balliol College in protest.

A political dissident and reformist Christian Communist, he peacefully resisted the Czech secret police in the 60s and 70s with the aid of prominent Oxford philosophers, being sent to prison several times. He has protested in Oxford several times in recent years and has dedicated his retirement to promoting new and radical readings of ancient philosophy.

His study in Oxford of rarely read German scholars and, he claims, his ability to read Greek “while thinking Greek, not like these Oxford professors who only translate” led to a total reversal in his understanding of Plato. This, he claims, has been silenced and suppressed to avoid academic embarrassment since the late 80s.

Tomin, who previously gave high profile lectures to Oxford dons and publicly in a Swindon pub, hopes to be invited to speak by Oxford students on his new ‘revolutionary’ paper on Plato’s ‘Parmenides’ dialogue. He may be reached via his website.

In defence of my NUS referendum motion: a response to Luke Barratt

1

In a Cherwell article this morning, Luke Barratt, critiqued the motion I put forward to OUSU council for a referendum on the NUS. I don’t want to get into the personal attacks made in the article, or the vitriol with which it is laced – more than a few on Facebook have already elaborated at length about the vindictiveness of the whole thing.

That said, there are more than a few other problems with Barratt’s article.

He contends that I have misrepresented a motion that I described as ‘seeking to ban Yik Yak’. Given that the motion called for a ban on anonymous posting, and that Yik Yak consists entirely of anonymous posts, it seems hard to see how this could amount to anything other than a full ban – especially since the proposer of the motion openly used the word ‘ban’ in his speech. I should know: I was there.

I am glad that he also raises the issue of NUS democracy, and in particular the idea of One Member One Vote, which he implies I oppose. In fact I, along with the other Oh Well Alright Then delegates, have campaigned vociferously for OMOV in the NUS, and last term brought a motion on just this issue to OUSU council. It was the overwhelming defeat of OMOV at conference (along with the attempts by NUS leaders to prevent it even being debated) that did much to persuade us that with no prospect of reform disaffiliation was now the only option. As long as the present system remains, the NUS will remain remote from those it claims to represent.

Finally, we come to the issue of Malia Bouattia. I’m disappointed that Barratt attempts a defence of someone whom almost every Jewish society in the country has condemned. The fact is that, when a minority group expresses major concerns about someone, we believe that they should be taken seriously. And, far from striking a conciliatory note, the Union of Jewish Students have expressed their profound dissatisfaction with Malia, including condemning her first article as President for misrepresenting her meeting with them.

The overall thrust of Barratt’s article seems to be that we seek disaffiliation purely because some people we didn’t like got elected. This couldn’t be further from the truth. We ran on a platform critical of the NUS, but went to conference with open minds. What we saw, however, was an organisation moving inexorably away from the views and priorities of ordinary students, with no hope of reform. We seek disaffiliation because we believe Oxford students will have their interests better represented outside of the NUS.

But, right now, disaffiliation is not even what is being debated. Our motion at OUSU council calls simply for a referendum, so that everyone at Oxford can have a say on the issue. If Barratt is right that our views are shared by only a minority of students, then a referendum will reveal that. We at Oh Well Alright Then have sufficient respect for our fellow students, especially those Jewish students who have raised concerns about Malia, to think they deserve to be able to decide for themselves. It saddens us that Luke Barratt clearly does not.

A beginner’s guide to… The Mechanisms

0

The Mechanisms are utterly unique. Each of their albums feature sci-fi re-imaginings of classic folklore, from Grimm’s fairy tales to Arthurian myth, perfectly capturing the nerdy passion of Oxford at its best. Most of their songs consist of folk standards, re-written to suit a plotline, making them a sturdy base line from which to work, and the performers sell their roles (of bloodthirsty space pirates with a penchant for storytelling) with arresting conviction.
Recorded in 2012, their debut album Once Upon a Time (in Space) tells the story of a brutal interplanetary dictator and the rebellion led against him. It is probably The Mechanisms’ most accessible album. There are rookie errors – the voice acting, for example, is rather weak – but there’s an absolutely mesmerising story at its core, along with some of the band’s catchiest tunes. Their second album, Ulysses Dies at Dawn, contains an even headier combination of styles and images, this time creating a grim cyberpunk version of Greek mythology. While a bit less accessible, the central image is absolute genius. Their recent EP, Frankenstein, is strong, with a lean and disturbing tale of a rogue AI, even if the underlying composition feels fairly workmanlike.
The Mechanisms still play Oxford occasionally (you may remember their appearance at the Bullingdon in January), and are currently working on a new full-length album. For fans of folklore or folk-music, this is not a band to be missed, and the fact that it’s right on our doorstep gives us even less of an excuse.

JCRs in favour of NUS referendum

0

Multiple JCRs have mandated their OUSU representatives to vote for the NUS referendum motion being brought to OUSU Council tonight. The meeting will begin at 5.15 at Magdalen College.

David Klemperer, one of Oxford’s NUS delegates and a member of the ‘Oh Well, Alright Then’ slate, proposed the motion which would resolve to hold a referendum in 5th week regarding affiliation to the NUS.

Each college is permitted to send up the three representatives to OUSU Council. Trinity, Merton and Magdalen colleges, amongst others, have mandated all three OUSU reps to vote for the referendum. Other colleges, including Balliol and Somerville, have delegated the representatives proportionately, with two reps to vote to leave and one vote to stay.

NUS motion

Motions have been highly controversial, with the Balliol meeting taking almost two hours to come to a decision.

This motion comes only two years after a previous referendum regarding membership in the NUS in 2014, which was discarded after allegations of vote-rigging.

The Independent
The Independent

The movement to get OUSU to disaffiliate from the NUS this time round was triggered following the election of Malia Bouattia to the NUS Presidency. Nearly 50 Jewish Societies from across the UK penned an open letter to Bouattia criticising her for expressing what some have perceived as anti-semitic views.

A number of students have defended Bouattia, however, with Bouattia herself writing an article in The Guardian defending what she has said.

Profile: Mary Berry

0

After taking my seat towards the back of the Union debating chamber, uncertain whether Cherwell would be able to interview Mary Berry, the illustrious guest of the evening, I am ushered to the front by a team of officials looking scared and flustered. I get out my note pad. It seems there will be an interview. Behind me, people are chuckling about the idea of writing down any tips Mary might give the audience. I find it hard to care: after all, I’m meeting Mary. At the end of her talk, I almost barge her security out of the way, such is my haste to gain access to the Goodman Room.

Sitting down next to Mary, her smile is welcoming, but firm. “What’s this for?” she asks. Needless to say, she hadn’t heard of Cherwell. I thank her for her time, but I see her staring through me to the waving crowds outside: she’s eager to return to them. Her showmanship is striking. Pausing to wave, she asks me to “get on with it”. I eagerly oblige.

I ask her about her own path to cookery. As with most people in that generation, she tells me of her experience in the war. Baking was limited; her mother told her family that “if you all don’t have sugar in your tea, there might be enough for the occasional cake”. When ingredients were scarce, there wasn’t much time for baking lessons. Her parents never taught her to bake, given that “with only the occasional cake, they weren’t going to let me screw it up!” In the chamber she had thanked her teacher, Miss Date, for inspiring her to cook in her Home Economics lessons. When asked about cooking in schools, which was how she started, she emphatically stated that “schools must take the lead” and that every child should “come to university with at least ten basic, nutritious dishes”.

“The family meal, be it the Sunday roast or the evening supper, is certainly changing. Lots of people haven’t got time for cooking anymore. But then again, there is the rise of the slow cooker”

Over the years, Mary has authored over seventy books, some of which focused specifically on Agas; indeed, her books introduced the Aga as a regular middle-class household appliance. Throughout her career, she has been, in many ways, a pioneer, constantly searching to modernise and stay on-trend. There is “no difficulty” in finding new ideas for her books, despite my naïve belief that there must only be a certain number of recipes one can cook. “Squash and fennel are both new ingredients which have arrived in your lifetime,” she reminds me. She is always ready to do something new, inspired by her young team. “We test and test and test the recipes. I always give them to the girls [her helpers] to try with their own family at home.” Her work is nothing if not proven and tested.

The family is at the heart of her cooking. “The family meal, be it the Sunday roast or the evening supper, is certainly changing. Lots of people haven’t got time for cooking anymore. But then again, there is the rise of the slow cooker.” She repeats later on that the slow cooker is perhaps the future of family food as “you can put all your ingredients in together and just get it when you need it.” In all of her books, she is “always cooking for your family, or my family.” She constantly raises her family, both in her talk and our interview, as the main inspiration for her food. Indeed, she claims that a concentration on the family is reason for the success of the Great British Bake Off, the incredibly successful BBC1 programme in which she teams up with Paul Hollywood to judge amateur bakers, the final of which got the highest ratings figures of 2015. She sees herself on the show as a teacher, whether it’s “for the man who’s had to turn off the footie or the baby on the knee, there’s always something and someone to be taught.”

“It was always about her baking; she deserved to win on those merits alone”

The conversation seamlessly flows to the subject of Nadiya Hussein, this year’s winner. As a Muslim woman who wears hijab, Nadiya, along with her fellow finalist Tamal Rey, was criticised by the right-wing columnist Quentin Letts in the Daily Mail, for daring to be “a Muslim headscarf wearer” who would “challenge the prejudices” of the “average license-fee payer” by showing that “see, Muslims love Chelsea buns, too!” His article was widely denounced on social media, and I ask Mary what impact she thinks Nadiya’s win might have had on the Muslim community. Perhaps naïvely, she looks taken aback by the question, as if she had never thought of it before. “It was always about her baking; she deserved to win on those merits alone,” she emphasises. Race, political correctness or even personality played no part, Mr Letts. “We judge week by week, which is what makes it doubly hard for the contestants. We don’t look back.”

Her judging style has widely been praised for its fairness. She insists that for her the show must be fair, as she doesn’t want “contestants to have to buy ingredients online. They should be able to source all of their ingredients in their local supermarkets.” Asked about the challenges, she reassures the viewers that there are certainly many things they haven’t tried yet, but “I make sure they’re not too complicated – I try and leave in as much help as I can.”

Despite “moving with the times”, she certainly thinks that clean eating “is just a fad.” “I will never use quinoa [which she pronounces key-noh-ah for comic effect] in my recipes” she told the hall; I wonder what she thinks of changing cookbook styles. Last year, Prue Leith, one of Mary’s contemporaries, claimed that we lavishly drool over food illustrations before buying recipe books which are devoid of real content. Mary says that “illustration is certainly more important, and I try to put emphasis on colour, layout etc.”

However, her recipes haven’t changed in style since her early days, since “I still use only a few ingredients with clear instruction which are to the point, with hints and tips to guide you along the way.” Her recipe books strike me as a modern take on an old style; eschewing the complicated recipe books of chefs with ingredients like juniper berries that you never need, she resolutely calls herself “a cook, not a chef; I cook for families, not kitchens”. I tell her that her falafel and white bean hummus hit our family’s table before they became staples of the rise of Turko-Syrian cuisine’s popularity in the UK. She smiles graciously, aware of her own ability to judge the zeitgeist.

She seems excited for the future of food more generally. Unlike the stale days of yore, “more people are genuinely enjoying cooking.” I posit that the changes in recipe books and the increased number of cookery television programmes are the reason for this change. She agrees, but stresses that people “seem to care more about how to eat.” As for her own interest in cookery television programmes, she says that James Martin’s Saturday Kitchen is her favourite. The real change she remarks on is that “over time more and more men are into cooking; they genuinely enjoy it.”

As the interview draws to a close, I see her look again at the queues of fans waiting outside; her smile widens as she sees how keen the students are to meet her. As she waves at them, seemingly eager to meet every single person, I ask about her popularity. “I’m not famous; the public is only ever nice to me.” It’s not hard to see why. Her television personality is, it seems, more or less her real personality. Clearly desperate to return to her fans, her answers become shorter and I take my cue to leave. Thanking her for the interview, I see the consummate showman return. Her smile widens in anticipation. She picks up her pen and gets ready. She can’t wait.

Everything wrong with the NUS disaffiliation motion

6

In a real car-crash of a motion to OUSU Council, David Klemperer, one of Oxford’s NUS delegates and a member of the ‘Oh Well, Alright Then’ slate, has proposed that OUSU hold a referendum in 5th week of this term on its affiliation to the NUS. I don’t want to get into the severe logistical difficulties facing this suggestion – I’m sure any representative from OUSU would be more able to enumerate problems such as giving time for students to campaign and generating enough interest that turnout at least reaches the paltry levels seen in the last NUS referendum.

That said, there are more than a few other problems with Klemperer’s proposal.

In the motion, Klemperer bizarrely refers to the NUS “seeking to ban Yik Yak”. He is describing – in admittedly strange terms – a resolution to speak to various social media sites to examine the possibility of reducing levels of hate speech from anonymous accounts during election periods. Since such abuse can in some cases amount to criminal behaviour, it is hard to understand the rationale behind criticizing the motion. It is even harder to see how Klemperer can have so vastly misinterpreted its intent. Such bias and lack of attention to detail is – unfortunately – typical of this motion.

NUS motion

The section in which this reference is found lists a few, apparently unconnected events from this year’s NUS conference. No explanation is given for the list, but it must be assumed that Klemperer believes them to be obvious reasons that Oxford should hold a referendum on NUS affiliation.

Next on the list is a motion against English and Maths being compulsory at GCSE. The purpose of this is to help students at colleges forced repeatedly to retake English and Maths, despite the irrelevance of these subjects to their life goals. Some might take issue with this on paternalistic grounds, but it is surely not uncontroversially a reason for us to abandon the entire institution of the NUS.

Another complaint regards the NUS’ democratic structure. Klemperer, an advocate of the ‘One Member, One Vote’ (OMOV) system, takes issue with the fact that the new president, Malia Bouattia, was elected by less than 0.005 per cent of the UK student population.

This, of course, is simply how the NUS works. If Klemperer were advocating for Oxford to pursue aggressively OMOV, perhaps this would be a legitimate point to make, but it is hard to see its relevance to the question of disaffiliation (would it be hitting below the belt to point out that Klemperer wasn’t particularly pleased with the results of OMOV in the Labour leadership election over the summer?). I think the electoral system of the UK government is hopelessly flawed and in need of some kind of proportional representation, but I don’t think Oxfordshire should become an independent state because of it.

Our national anthem would have to be Shakira, but a terrible a capella version.
Our national anthem would have to be Shakira, but a terrible a capella version.

It may seem strange, but this argument speaks to Klemperer’s true reasons for proposing this motion. He doesn’t agree with NUS policy. He finds that his views are shared by a minority of students in the country. This is an uncomfortable position for anyone to be in, and he has my sympathy. But this disingenuous, ill-considered, self-serving piece of political pageantry is no kind of solution.

Underlying all of this is the election of Malia Bouattia as NUS president, and it is odd that Klemperer only briefly mentions the accusations of anti-Semitism that have been levelled at her, since it seems obvious that this was his primary motivating factor. Bouattia, it is clear, has questions to answer regarding her free usage of vague and euphemistic phrases like “Zionist-led media”, but to her credit she has sought dialogue with concerned students. The Union of Jewish Students has also struck a conciliatory tone. Meanwhile, Klemperer et al. want to stick their fingers in their ears and their heads in the sand.

The idea that the proper response to a democratic decision with which one disagrees – whether it be concerning Yik Yak, the curriculum, or the election of a president – is to disaffiliate from the institution that made that decision is, it seems to me, fundamentally misguided.

To paraphrase a slogan of the obnoxiously named ‘Oh Well, Alright Then’, democracy is not about getting everything you want, all of the time.

Whether you are in favour of holding a referendum or not, you should not have to accept a motion like this in your student union. Anyone who does want a referendum should demand a motion that has a better relationship with the truth, as this would surely get any campaign to leave off to a far less acrimonious start.

A response to Luke Barratt’s piece from David Klemperer can be found here: ‘In defence of my NUS referendum motion: a response to Luke Barratt’.

Rewind: Pravda

0

This week in 1912 saw the first publication of Pravda. From the front cover, Lenin gazes sternly towards the horizon, presumably towards a utopia of social equality and worker’s liberation. For over 70 years his baleful eyes greeted the people of Russia every day. And for millions of soviet citizens, this was the truth. Their present was defined in Pravda’s pages, official history being written before their eyes.

This power was not limited to state controlled media, although it provides an extreme example. All newspapers play a part in constructing political and social narratives, and by habit present their contents as the unchallenged truth. They are by definition ‘new’; an exact representation of the current state of affairs.

Pravda was such a crucial publication because it defined itself against other news. It monopolised truth, its title laying claim to ownership of reality (Pravda means ‘truth’ in Russian). Other sources of information were “malicious western deceptions” that should never be trusted by the denizens of the true socialist nations.

In a Russian population newly blessed with the skills of literacy, reading the news was a form of empowerment, entrenching the government’s image of civilising progress.

It is easy to assume that the lack of choice would have led to the abandonment of individual opinion. But people were aware of the extent to which they were being fed information. A popular joke in the late 50s involved the intensely competitive Khrushchev challenging Eisenhower to a foot race during the former’s visit to the US in 1959, which he loses and Pravda reports as “Our leader Nikita Khrushchev has captured second place in a world-class field, while the US president finished a humiliating second to last.” They consumed Pravda’s information but were able to challenge what they read, and this discourse is what gives the free press its vibrancy, forming disillusionment with the Soviet regime.

News discusses events, presenting themselves as the sole arbiter of the truth yet flexible enough to further develop its narrative. Being able to decide which story you want to follow is a luxury often taken for granted, but on this anniversary it is worth remembering what the alternative is. The Western liberal tradition is built on the foundation of the free press and the ability to choose and reject different narratives. Our here and now, unlike the Soviet Union’s, is one of our own choosing, a fact that no amount of celebration is sufficient for.

 

 

Stop to record the moment

0

Recently, sorting through some of my mum’s old belongings, we found a box full of letters she had been sent as a student on her year abroad.

“Ah, the days before email…” she started off wistfully whilst I leafed through them, feeling a second hand nostalgia for an age of letter-sending, likely inherited from a partiality to period dramas and Jane Austen novels. I liked one letter the most because half way down the sender’s hand had been jogged by the train she had been travelling on.

“Apologies for wobbly writing…” You could see the squiggly mark on the page, preserving the exact moment of the train jolting on the track. Like a stopped clock, the letter fixed a moment in time that could be viewed outside its ordered place, viewed within a new frame of references.

This kind of awareness of being somehow of my mum’s old belongings, we found a box full of letters she had been sent as a student on her year abroad. “Ah, the days before email…”able to enter into a different time is often experienced when we wander around museums and galleries, where things have been deliberately galleries, where things have been deliberately preserved for historical or cultural importance. It’s the immediacy of what we see that is exciting, its strangeness and difference, but also the feeling of recognition. We feel connected with the presence of another human being, reminded that perceptions exist based on entirely different calibrations of thinking.

Looking back this way at the carefully exhibited, distilled past often makes me think about ‘here and now’ in the broader sense, the conditions of our own time and culture, how ‘the past’ has created these, and what our personal experience is. This sounds safe, systematic and chronological – certainly ‘here and now’ implies something static and fixed; an agreed time and place within the scope of ‘past, present and future’. History is often cited as something that unifies us, a common ground of inheritance. The process of learning the lessons of the past is usually viewed as a responsibility shared by a society, and this is vital. But to define what it means to exist in any given moment is surely elusive, since the present moment is just the outcome of your own seemingly random trajectory.

It would often seem that the best places to find records of this double response to the present and its past is within the vast diversity of art and literature. Consciously or not, works of art and literature still preserve the presence of an individual at a certain time. Unlike old objects and artefacts preserved in a museum with indisputable functions, art is not passive. Through the fact of its own subjectivity, it invokes countless readings and reactions.

Joyce was aware of this with Ulysses: it might sum up the spirit of a modernist age reacting against the past, but at the same time, the novel acknowledges that existing in any moment is a solitary experience. No one can ever identically experience the countless thoughts, impulses and emotions that proliferate through our minds in real time. This is how the characters are portrayed, but it is also what we experience as a reader. You are an outsider forming your own interpretations of these characters’ expressions of existence, constantly reviewing your own provisional perceptions.

Perhaps, then, a work of art or literature excludes those who engage with it by keeping its real meaning hidden; we can never truly and know why someone created it. Like walking around a museum, we realise that even if we can’t occupy old moments, as human as their representations may be, they open up our imagination. We are intriguingly close yet distant from someone else’s here-and-now.

There is a parallel here with the concept of social media, the instantaneous yet remote insight into the lives of others. Yet if art and culture are held as a space where their ‘here and now’ represents creativity, imagination creativity, imagination and difference, then social media is its foil. Where books and art initiate thoughtful discussion, what is shared online is accused of creating isolation, as we are more interested in how our lives appear than how they really are.

“Carpe diem” we are told – “seize the day.” The paradox is that to immerse yourself in the moment requires you to step outside it, to consider how it is expressed and understood by others. Social media may seem to be an embodiment of this, but the criticism that it somehow makes moments hollow, detracts from their spontaneity and vitality, seems unfounded. We carry old moments and experiences around with us, and the here-and-now is a record of our presence not only in that moment but in our conceptions of the past and future too.

An outward expression of someone’s ‘here and now,’ be it a Facebook upload or an iconic artwork, reminds us again of our provisional and isolated outlooks, but in doing so allows us to benefit from new ideas or better appreciate the impact of others.