How Much Smaller Can We Slice Human Existence?

Or Why Video is Less Engaging than Photos 

Instagram rolled out video sharing this week making it a direct competitor with Vine. Back in January Vine became the Twitter of video sharing. Six second snippets and that’s all. Instagram has decided to up the ante allowing 15 seconds. There are different technical parameters of course, Instagram has rolled out filters and better stabilization, for instance.

But the key factor in all of this is the time limit. Warhol predicted we’d all be famous for 15 minutes, but is seems the most we can hope for in the world of social is 15 seconds.

Video is a literal medium. The viewer brings almost nothing to the table in the experience. We expect a one-way content street. We are presented something. This is true of movies, TV shows, commercials and even web video. It’s a passive space. Great motion pictures (that phrase is particularly helpful with these apps) give the viewer a complete story.

Photos on the other hand invite the viewer to bring something to the conversation. The photographer (no matter how good or bad) brings us an image. What we view and understand is the other side of the conversation.

So when Instagram limits you to a square frame and gives you some filters to play with that’s all you need to be creative. When an app tells you that your video must be 15 seconds or 6 seconds then you’ve instantly shortened the message. You’ve made it impossible to make good content.

Soon enough Instagram will populate with videos of trains at sunset and street performances. Tiny little snippets of the human experience. Tied up in a little bow with nothing to add, nothing to imagine.

How small are we willing to slice ourselves?