Editorial: How we became so selfie aware

Kim Gillespie has taken his own selfie.

Technology has done a lot to improve our lives, but it has also been responsible for the meteoric rise in popularity of the "selfie" - a photograph of yourself taken by yourself.

Back when cameras were cameras and phones were hallway appliances and we didn't need profile pictures there wasn't much call for taking photos of yourself. Why bother when you could just look in the mirror or ask someone else to take the photo?

Our columnist Brian Holden wrote in yesterday's paper about selfie sticks - extendable rods to which you attach your smartphone to take a picture of yourself. He argued that it's better to get someone else to take the shot - that way you get to meet strangers, plus you get to avoid the tell-tale outstretched arm and pole.

But selfies are, in their own way, an art form that only works when you know the subject is the artist.

These days they're usually taken to be shared, not sit in an album. "Look - I was here!"

This is especially the case with daredevil selfies, as have featured in news reports this week.

Pictures of three youths taking selfies atop an 18-storey building in central Auckland have sparked safety concerns and accusations that property owners aren't doing enough to restrict access to high-risk areas.

Those accusers have a point in as far as it's a good idea to restrict that access - but idiots looking for a thrill must bear the bulk of the responsibilities for their actions.

Of course a teeny bit of that responsibility should also fall on the shoulders of each idiot's audience, who lap up and encourage the risky behaviour.

Meanwhile, most of us are happy either not taking photos of ourselves (or leaving it to the experts), or doing so on solid ground, or, in the case of my poorly framed selfie (above) on a perfectly safe swing bridge above the Waikato River in the middle of nowhere. Look - I was there!