Let's face it, Facebook itself is a discourse strongly tied to making identities by the simply fact that it revolves around "profiles" of self and others. Visual communication is an integral part of this process. The profile picture is not just a nice addition, is arguably the most predominant feature of a person's activity on Facebook. A person's home page start with a profile picture, considerably larger than any other postings on the page, and is followed by the name to the right in much smaller space. It can become clear from this instance alone that the picture carries more weight than the name does on Facebook. Also, because the picture is on the far left and we as a culture read from left to right, it can be assumed that, after the words Facebook, we will see the picture first. It is also considerably larger than the title Facebook, which is above the name, so it is arguably more attractive than even the logo of the site itself. We can see from this argument alone how important this profile pictures are.

This pattern of emphasis on the picture carries into other facets of Facebook, including any interaction with friends. When friends look at friends, their profiles are the exact format as their own. They see a large picture on the top left, and see their name, much smaller, following. As can be seen in the picture above. This is a picture of a fake Facebook website created by www.geekologie.com. This trend continues off the profile pages. Most activity on Facebook (excluding browsing, stalking, and, of course, and some of the games) is documented through posts on walls, where people post on their own site or their friends', and/or the home page, which shows activity of any of your friends on Facebook. Both of these locations are filled with postings such as comments, which are created in friend’s sites a message in box beneath their name that says "write something." In this same box, a person can make their own status, or something they want to say that will be read by any of their friends, in the same bar. Other postings include posting creating a new album, uploading pictures, uploading a video, writing a note, and joining interest groups/event groups. The importance of explaining that is that each posting starts with a thumbnail profile picture of the person who posts and continues with their name and whatever they are posting. This is true when a person posts on their own wall and on other’s walls, or even when they add comments to posts on the home page. Any activity is accompanied by their profile picture and name, followed by the specific activity. You can see the process emerging: visually gather a profile, connect it to the name and then the other information. Whatever posting follows the profile to "tell you about a person" is immediately not as important as the picture itself, because the picture initiates the posting. Of course they eye may skip over the picture if the post catches their eye first, but that doesn’t change the fact that it starts with the visual representation of who this person is. The identity of a user and how they are connected with other users starts off with an image. Through these examples, we see that the construction of image is heavily emphasized through the visual presentation of the self.

According to many contemporary social theorists, a person attempts to control or guide the impression others might have of him or her by fixing his or her setting, appearance and manner to achieve what is culturally considered ideal (Goffman 35). In this line of reasoning, people have the ability to decide what is appropriate for a situation and act accordingly. Applying this concept to Facebook profile pictures, we see that people learn what pictures are appropriate through interaction with society, specifically with peers and other social influences. I would argue that these trends show a blend of society and the user's personal life because they are situated within a discourse that is influenced by other users and media flow (such as advertisements, celebrities). Whether users are aware or not, they learn how to appropriately act and behave on Facebook, through observation and conscious or unconscious application (Goffman; Schechner). We can see how this theory applies to Facebook even more clearly through Mark Poster's work. He writes that that on "the internet, individuals construct their identities in relation to ongoing dialogues, not as acts of pure consciousness"(211). He would likely argue that Facebook users construct their identities in relation to the pictures they display on Facebook. However, it does not happen consciously or as a direct reciprocation between the picture and the user. Rather, it is a method of complex interactions between consumer, producer and the greater social setting in which it is located.

This analysis shows what pictures are considered appropriate by looking at the commonalities between the pictures and looking at the ways that people comment on the pictures. It assumes that the pictures with the most comments are seen as being "more appropriate" and the pictures with fewer comments are seen as being "less appropriate." Appropriate indicates that it successfully fits within the norms of the discourse, not a moral "appropriate." In doing this, it will show through the image and the comment what the users value and appreciate from the pictures. It will finally show that that the values found can be linked to values in popular culture, especially as the values are linked to visual qualities within the picture. Whether users choose to accommodate with or resist the ideologies of this particular culture, it doesn't change the fact that their pictures quickly become assimilated as a part of the new aspect of popular culture. They are embedded within a stream of media flow, which has specific implications about the way that pictures are consumed. Through the analysis, I will show that user's profile pictures show that Facebook is situated within a discourse of popular culture.

First we're going to look at my own pictures, then other users.