We Live in Public is playing at IFC Center until Sept. 10, and in other cities soon.

Robert Stribley and I recently started a movie screening series called Razorflix to show interesting documentaries about creative endeavors once a month in the office. Last week a few of us went on a field trip to see We Live in Public at the IFC Center. The film depicts Josh Harris, an internet entrepreneur who used his Bubble 1.0 earnings to fund several projects around capturing and broadcasting video of regular people living their lives. One of these experiments, called Quiet, was a locked-down community where dozens of people lived together in close quarters and had cameras pointed at them everywhere they went, every minute of the day. It got messy. Days later, we were still thinking about it.

Robert: What did We Live in Public leave you thinking about?

Rachel: I was thinking afterwards how weird it is that the two cultural icons that people were comparing Josh Harris to were Andy Warhol and Gilligan.

Robert: Right. Of course, he invited both - especially Gilligan.

Rachel: I could see the Warhol comparison. He was also kind of a mad genius who didn’t know how to relate to people except through using them in his art.

Robert: Well, it seems a little exaggerated, but it is eerie to see the parallels between what Harris was doing and what’s coming to fruition online.  And his point about people wanting “15 minutes of fame every day” is certainly taken. Seems Warhol was a little less misanthropic though.

Rachel: Well, the thing about the “15 minutes of fame” that I guess Warhol didn’t take into account is that for some people it would be addictive. Harris seemed to see that.

Robert: It’s an excellent point. And Warhol didn’t have the Web and social media to inspire his thinking … does make you wonder what he’d have done with them. Would we be following @andywarhol on Twitter?

Rachel: Absolutely! Warhol would have loved Twitter!

Robert: I’m sure.

Rachel: I don’t think everyone is so addicted to online celebrity.

Robert: Right - that’s where I think Harris is projecting. He attributes his own thoughts and motivations to others a lot.

Rachel: Well, the screen was his companion as a child. I loved that comment when someone said, about him, “He finally crawled into the TV, and he found it very lonely when he was in there.”

Robert: If I were allowed dime store analysis, I’d suggest many of his projects were about procuring intimacy - as if it could be conjured - or in some cases demanded.

Rachel: It’s very one-directional intimacy.

Robert: But he also found many other kindred spirits who desired the same. Though that doesn’t mean they connected much.

Rachel: Yeah - they watched others, or they were excited about being watched, but they weren’t really interacting. I can’t decide if I’m impressed with the way he predicted what would happen with social media, or disgusted by the grotesque way he chose to demonstrate it.

Robert: Little bit of both?

Rachel: Maybe both.

Robert: One of the biggest takeaways for me was seeing just how much people were willing to give away of themselves … for free. As participants in the Quiet project, they were like content slaves, chained up in a galley, where they created content for him for free, or for at best for a little titillation, a smidgen of fame.

Rachel: They got to “be part of something.” And some people just like to be watched. There was that guy in the audience at our screening who had been in Quiet and he seemed, a decade later, to still be doing the same kind of thing with his life.

Robert: His most chilling quote - or one of them! - was the one about how everyone in the experiment got whatever they wanted for free, but that what they revealed on those tapes belonged to him … cue transition to Facebook screenshot.

Rachel: But I don’t think most people use social media like that, do you? Sure there are the exhibitionists, but…

Robert: I think it’s similar in principle, yes - but we get to draw a line at just how exhibitionist we are… only sometimes there may be motivations to let our standards slip - and I think that may be what we’re seeing. Not necessarily Quiet on Facebook … but a general loosening, a shaking up.

Rachel: Well, it’s like the people in Quiet who, once they got used to being visible all the time just started undressing in front of everyone. Why bother hiding anything?

Robert: Right, and there are probably pluses and minuses to that.

Rachel: What are the pluses?

Robert: Transparency is not a bad thing - many of us could stand to be more transparent. There are probably some taboos that exist, which actually only inhibit our growth - and by that I mean the ability to talk openly - and civilly - about subjects which mean a lot to us. But of course at some point, it may become TMI. Maybe we’re better learning what the balance is. Shifting away from the more Victorian mores which tell us we’re not supposed to discuss sex, politics or religion in public!

Rachel: So where does the responsibility lie to find that balance? Consumer beware? Or on people like us who create the social things?

Robert: Yep, in each of us I think. We’re already seeing that some folks are running from Facebook. Anecdotally anyway. Stories are beginning to gain traction of people leaving Facebook after bouts of over sharing - or not liking what they’re seeing in their “friends” there. But I think you’re right, the creators bear some responsibility, too.

Rachel: One major difference is that now the social network is so widespread, it kind of polices itself, like when Facebook changes a policy and people don’t like it, they make noise. Not like the totalitarian state that people acquiesced to in Quiet.

Robert: Yep, exactly. There’s some two-way communication at least. But people probably do feel somewhat tied down to the content they’ve invested there … to the capital that is their friends list!

Rachel: As they should - they invested their time and energy into it!

Robert: Which then allows Facebook to harvest our private information, along with every app maker of good or nefarious intent out there. Of course, I’m using Facebook as an example because of its predominance, but the same applies to Twitter, MySpace, FriendFeed, even delicious and others in a way (storage vats of our personal information online - often open to the public and corporate eye).

Rachel: It’s funny, in the last few decades of the 20th century, the big issue was media literacy. We were worried about the images children would see and how they’d deal with them. Now the problem is over sharing. How long does it take a kid to figure out how much information is TMI?

Robert: Good question. Maybe depends upon what kind of role models he or she has? Though I’m sure, it’s more complicated than that. If we were in Google Talk, an ad would appear advertising something relevant to our chat ;)

Rachel: Haha. An ad for how to protect yourself from revealing too much on the Interwebs?

Robert: So where does it go from here do you think? How much more are we willing to share in exchange for what?

Rachel: Well, the film definitely made me think about how to be responsible with social media. Both how I use it personally and what we do with it professionally.

Robert: Exactly. Halfway through the film, I tweeted “We Live in Public: making me think I should delete my Facebook profile.” Of course, I did not delete it!

Rachel: Did you reconsider?

Robert: Probably not, but was even more sensitive to the quiet watchers who read all that you post there, just like those people in Quiet, laying in their darkened beds, watching the screens flicker, portraying the most utterly intimate rituals of their fellow bunker mates.

Rachel: Do you ever dream of going on a media fast? Maybe move to Ethiopia, like Josh Harris?

Robert: I do sometimes. I love to consume information of one sort or another constantly. But we do still have books!  I know when I travel to places like Cuba … I’d say I didn’t miss it, but I did go to the hotel and surf the Web each day and tweet! But it is something you can do without. Has that been your experience?

Rachel: I don’t know if I could do without media.

Robert: You’re that wired, huh? But you’re a reader … paper doesn’t do it for you anymore? Or does that fall under the media domain?

Rachel: I love books, but I never have time to read them.  I still like writing on paper though.

Robert: Enjoy it while it lasts!