I just signed up for my first ever e-course: NOW YOU on self-portraiture. I’ll receive email assignments three times a week for six weeks, and there’ll be discussions and a private Flickr group to share results with the other participants.

I’ve seen a lot of these e-courses advertised over the last couple of years, and particularly in the craft blog sphere. They seem fairly expensive (this one is $75) but as such they’re also an interesting example of a new kind of cottage industry, where women (usually women as far as I have seen) sell their services to other women. Looking at a list on Studio Mothers, the quality seems varying – often these e-courses seem simply to be ways of packaging a series of blog posts in a way where you can sell them. I suppose that’s fine. Most of the courses do promise more than “daily inspirational emails from me”, and there’s usually a strong emphasis on community, on finding oneself, on finding ways to be happy within everyday constraints and without grand outward changes – the material for this course mentions finding beauty in our changing bodies, and repeatedly uses the phrase “everyday beauty”.

Many blogs share this urge towards self-improvement. In her book on blogging, Viviane Serfaty argued that blogs follow the Puritan tradition of the diary as a form of spiritual work, meant to be shared with others and seen as a constant tool for self-improvement. Blogging itself is also seen as a tool for achieving happiness: I have a book on my desk titled Blogging for Bliss: Crafting Your Own Online Journal, and there are, of course, e-courses helping you to become a better blogger.

In presentations about blogs, I often use this image (the view from my window in particularly dramatic lighting) to illustrate bloggers' urge for self-improvement - or at least self-understanding.

As a researcher I’m very interested in the many ways we represent ourselves online. In blogs, obviously, but also in self-portraits and through the automated templates social media provide us (free preprint here). So learning more about both self-portraits in general and about how people think about self-portraits intrigues me.

As a human being I like the idea of working to improve at seeing myself – like many of us, I tend to dislike photos of me, and while I’ve tried taking self-portraits I’ve not had a lot of luck. Challenging myself to experiment with this for six weeks sounds like it would be both fun and satisfying. I’ll let you know how it goes.

And while I’m curious about this as a researcher, I’ll be attending the course as a human being, not in order to do research on it.


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

Academics in Norway: Sign this petition asking for research-based discussions of how to use AI in universities

I just signed a petition calling for Norwegian universities to use research expertise on AI when deciding how to implement it, rather than having decisions be made mostly administratively. ,  If you are a researcher in Norway, please read it and sign it if you agree – and share with anyone else who might be interested. The petition was written by three researchers at UiT: Maria Danielsen (a philosopher who completed her PhD in 2025 on AI and ethics, including discussions of art and working life), Knut Ørke (Norwegian as a second language), and Holger Pötzsch (a professor of media studies with many years of research on digital media, video games, disruption, and working life, among other topics).  This is not about preventing researchers from exploring AI methods in their research. It is about not uncritically accepting the hype that everyone must use AI everywhere without critical reflection. It is about not introducing Copilot as the default option in word processors, or training PhD candidates to believe they will fall behind if they do not use AI when writing articles, without proper academic discussion. Changes like these should be knowledge-based and discussed academically, not merely decided administratively, because they alter the epistemological foundations of research. Maria wrote to me a couple of months ago because she had read my opinion piece in Aftenposten in which I called for a strong brake on the use of language models in knowledge work. She was part of a committee tasked with developing UiT’s AI strategy and was concerned because there was so much hype and so few members of the committee with actual expertise in AI. I fully support the petition. There are probably some good uses for AI in research, but the uncritical, hype-driven insistence that we must simply adopt it everywhere is highly risky. There are many researchers in Norway with strong expertise in AI, language, ethics, working life, and culture. We must make use of this expertise. This is also partly about respect for research in the humanities, social sciences, psychology, and law. Introducing AI at universities and university colleges is not merely a technical issue, and perhaps not even primarily a technical one. It concerns much more: philosophy of science, methodological reflection, epistemology, writing, publishing, the working environment, and more. […]

screenshot of Grammarly - main text in the middle, names of experts on the left with reccomendations and on the right more info about the expert review feature
AI and algorithmic culture Teaching

Grammarly generated fake expert reviews “by” real scholars

Grammarly is a full on AI plagiarism machine now, generating text, citations (often irrelevant), “humanizing” the text to avoid AI checkers and so on. If you’re an author or scholar, they also have been impersonating and offering “feedback” in your name. Until yesterday, when they discontinued the Expert Review feature due to a class action lawsuit. Here are screenshots of how it worked.