Skip navigation

One comment I was struggling with during Professor Chun’s lecture ¬†when she remarked that GRINDR profiles displaying the distance of other users was representative of the increasing grid-like nature of our experience of space. I agree that it certainly plays with our ideas of space and brings to mind Baudrillard’s map preceding the territory. However, unlike Google Maps and other new media representations of space as a flat grid, I find that the distance feature on GRINDR’s most striking effect is that it displays no direction or context, an effect that de-grids space in a sense. Knowing that Suitor A is 578 Feet Away, Suitor B is 2.3 miles away, Creeper A is 1.4 miles away and Ex Boyfriend A is 8.5 miles away without knowing in what direction, whether that’s actually where they live or if they are out and about (or indeed the assumption in itself that GRINDR location correlates to their actual location), creates a grid that, unlike most new media grids, is made up of potential people, completely removed from physical context, or direction. To determine the potential locations of another GRINDR user, one must pinpoint their own location and draw a circle around themselves the distance of the other user. The primary function of the distance feature, or at least the common sense one for GRINDR’s primary userbase, is to determine how long it will take to meet up with someone. Yet as anyone who has driven a significant amount knows, travelling 10 miles in one direction does not always take the same time as it does to travel 10 miles in a different direction due to road conditions, traffic and differing speed limits. Perhaps this ‘As the crow flies’ distance feature creates a haptic hook up environment, where people are not actually existing in space. The distance feature implies that the actual direction of the travel, or perhaps more interestingly what neighborhood one lives in, have no effect on their “gameplay”. No strings attached applies to physical space as well it seems.