In class, Manny talked about the possibilities that panoptic culture might grant to those who "hide in plain sight," who seek out and find spaces of resistance to the discipline of surveillance.
His suggestion brings to mind a few artistic interventions into/responses to surveillance culture. Consider, for example, the Surveillance Camera Players:
Throughout the late nineties and aughts, this group staged various pieces--from individual signs ("Just shopping." "Minding my own business.") to full-length adaptations of plays like 1984 or Waiting for Godot. They published maps of surveillance cameras in New York City.
In such a world, another response might be to present a false face. Masks are nothing new, of course, but some artists are taking that to the next level, designing wearable projection masks:
One wonders how these kind of masks may interact with fake-face technologies such as deepfakes. The potentials for creative-productive innovation and criminal exploitation are equally ripe.
For this next post, then: show and tell a creative performance response to the attention economy and/or surveillance capitalism. Explain and explore how that response works in and around the disciplines it exists within. Where is the intervention's resistance effective? Where is it less so?
I'm eager to see what you come up with.
This is a response to Victoria's blog entry about the surveillance economy. She brings up a strong point about the monetizing of celebrity habits. Her point about people choosing to consume goods that celebrities enjoy is not new. But the surveillance economy spares no one's privacy. Thirty years ago it was harder to capture and publish an image of a celeb in their favorite t-shirt, or guzzling Cheese-whiz(tm) from the can. Paparazzi would have to chase them down, at the grocery store. But with camera's everywhere those images are much easier to capture and publish. Different celebrities have adapted differently to the new normal. But those adaptations involve adapting a new public mask for the day. With the example Victoria mentions of designer clothes at awards shows. Some celebrities fully embrace the designer clothing endorsements and are comfortable with that role of "classic" stylish celebrity at the awards ceremony. Some want to be known as the the fashion renegades and push the boundaries of fashion (tuxedo dress anyone?) a performative act that says "I'm a revolution, and I look gooood!" and others like Will Smith and Whoopi Goldburg hace long projected a a mask that foregoes designer fashion. It's a well made performative identity because they don't denigrate designer fashion but have deftly, intentionally or unintentionally, presented a self image of someone who simply has different priorities.
ReplyDeleteI read Tiffany's blog and agree on that TikTok is an attention economy app, however I disagree with the video's that encourage people to go to sleep. As usually, a regular mobile device user, never checks just one app. If there is a Tik Tok then there is an Instagram or/and Facebook, Messengers, Gmail, others. Therefore, I can't see how a video (even with another type of contact) can stop the attention that user gives to the app. Most likely a user will just scroll "next". Especially, if it is not a night time, but a daytime. This way that "go to sleep" video will just be one more waste of time.
ReplyDeleteI once again misunderstood that I was supposed to respond to YOUR blog instead of my colleague's blog, so here is the response I had to Henry's blog on this subject:
ReplyDeleteI love this example. It's odd and it's strange and a little on the creepy side, but I think it's interesting. Makes me wonder, what other kinds of things could we use the tracking with our phones to our advantage? And how can we step away from our phones more often throughout each day to better release ourselves from dependence on our phones?