Chiara Ferragni, who are you when nobody sees you?

Chiara Ferragni, who are you when nobody sees you?

There is a passage (which is intended to be particularly symbolic) in the TV series The Ferragnez, in which a friend of Chiara Ferragni claims to admire her because “she knows how to distinguish between public and private” or “after having published a post, she knows when to put aside the phone and start enjoying those around”. An enviable balance, if it were true, because it would be what we all should aim for: a balance that somehow stems our FOMO – Fear of missing outor our phobia of absent from social networks (emblematic i meme “If you don’t post it, you’ve never been there”, a true claim of the Millennials). Too bad then, the other morning, Chiara published a video that raised numerous perplexities, a video that the entrepreneur took care to go and shred directly from the footage of the security cameras of her Milanese home and in which she is immortalized in a deeply intimate moment together with her son Leone: she tells the child that she is proud of him, and he, obviously not knowing he is being filmed, replies with enormous spontaneity and sweetness that the same is true for him, that his mother “is a flower”; it follows that the clip is thus post-produced, subtitled and posted on Instagram.

And in short, to watch this video today – which has attracted the now acclaimed criticism for overexposure of minors under the direction of a monumental Truman Show – one imagines all the human complexity of a life lived with the retro-thought of having to make it not only life but also profession. A virtual claustrophobia, in short, anything but enviable.

The wave of outrage over the video recorded by the surveillance cameras

It is true, in those images, although they have been so controversial, in the end there is nothing different than what usually happens in the Ferragnez family: their life, we were saying here, is now a sit-com, a sit- com which is intertwined with the promotion of the economic activities of the former fashion blogger and her husband Fedez. And, we know, the intertwining between private and professional is functional to the promotion of any character of the show, from the days when the press offices artfully mounted rivalry between celebrities in the sixties to the fake paparazzi of the weeklies as well as the invention of fake weddings capable of reviving forgotten personalities (remember Pamela Prati). But, for more symbolic than substantive reasons, for reasons more related to the perception of the thing than to the actual content, the publication of the curtain that took place in Leone’s bedroom, born to remain such and not to become a social content, appeared to the public. like the violation of an even more intimate space, capable of generating a strong wave of indignation. It appeared as the violation of that shadow that we hope influencers have, by way of protection against an inevitably dystopian life (forgive us the use of a term so abused these days, ed,), but which obviously becomes borderline when posting is no longer linked to personal narcissism, but to professional issues.

We have already explained that the contents of the Ferragnez with the children as protagonists are the ones that generate the absolute greatest engagement, that is, the greatest involvement of the public (or the greatest media return, therefore professional), in fact, we have already explained it here. That perhaps we are exaggerating in our reflections, because there is nothing wrong with sharing a particularly rewarding moment next to your child, it is possible. But it is striking to see how the smartphone, and with it the dynamics of social networks, enter – symbolically, we repeat – this time even inside the surveillance cameras of an apartment. Cameras that by definition monitor and protect the vulnerability of those who live in a house and which in this case, instead, are used to make people suddenly vulnerable, because they are exposed. In short, from the “American floor” of the cinema we pass to the “aquarium floor” of the Ferragnez: the effect is that of a house capable of becoming a bubble of potential content to be posted. A house that observes and, who knows, maybe it can also subconsciously influence behavior.

The question of the protection of minors

Who is certainly not conditioned in his behavior, however, is Leo, for the simple fact that this time he did not know he was being filmed. And, although the accusations of the non-consent of a minor do not stand up – because then they should exist not only in this case, but every time a video of him and Vittoria is posted – the publication of such an intimate, tender, moving moment has disturbed more than usually the public. This is because, always at the level of perception, one thing is to register the child after putting a phone in his face, another is to take him back in secret. To those who are concerned about protesting in defense of Leone, however, we say that the basic concept does not change: consent is too nuanced a concept if it concerns childhood and, above all, Fedez has already answered definitively to the overexposure of children. years ago when he said he preferred to show them first, in order to anticipate the media rush to do so. Furthermore, on the so-called “sharenting”, that is the activity by parents (“parenting”) of posting photos of the offspring on social networks (“share”), we have explored the topic here, but only future studies on the subject will be able to tell us about the consequences. real issues, be it by Fedez or by all of us.

What parents who post photos of their children need to know

The “breaking of the fourth wall” is social

In short, Ferragni in sharing a video taken from the surveillance cameras of his own house did not do anything different from the usual in substance, but he did it in form. In fact, it is precisely the question of the (lack of) “phone in the face” that is central, because it represented a bit of a “breaking of the fourth wall”, unexpected or perhaps just more violent than usual for the followers.

We say it better. In the theater, “breaking of the fourth wall” means a moment in which the actors show themselves aware of being filmed; in the case of the Ferragni, on the other hand, she and her husband are always well aware that they are being filmed, but they suggest spontaneity; therefore, if we have to think about a rupture, we think the other way around. We say it even better: when they stop letting spontaneity be understood, but they “package”, literally, artificially and in retrospect a spontaneous moment – like Leo’s – Chiara and her husband show (or maybe they admit?) More clearly than usual, their own editorial line, the need to support social networks with their daily lives. And the audience, consequently, which is used to being addicted to the idea of ​​”reality show” and not “post-production”, is indignant.

Why can’t you take your eyes off the profiles of Chiara Ferragni and Fedez

Moreover, the parallels proposed by users on social networks, in particular by haters in particular, between the life of Leone Maria Ferragni and that of Jim Carrey in the Truman Show. Parallelisms in which one wonders who Chiara Ferragni is when no one sees her, if there is a Chiara Ferragni repaired by the camera. And, above all, who we are, when no one is looking at us. As long as we really care about still being something different than what we show in the feed.


Dissolved 🥲

♬ original sound – Chiara Ferragni

#Chiara #Ferragni #sees

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.