This week’s reading was very interesting as it dives into the technicalities of computer vision, making it seem a lot more doable, than what one might think. By breaking down computer vision into its algorithm’s basic fundamental nature, it becomes something as simple as is this pixel’s brightness greater than or less than my threshold value. Although this type of algorithmic analysis is completely different from how we as humans use vision to understand the world, it does seem like an interesting idea to conceptualize. The farthest I can reach in comparison between computer vision and human vision (as someone with no visual impairments) might be in looking at a black-and-white photo or viewing something with a stark contrast filter.
These algorithms are super interesting though because we can literally just work from light comparison in order to send different messages to the computer about what it’s seeing. In order to optimize this it is important that we give the computer clear cut distinctions from what we want it to focus on and what we don’t. I also find it interesting how beyond light, we can use things such as heat to act as the eyes of the computer.
I think computer vision’s capacity for tracking and surveillance affects its use in interactive art because opens new avenues for creativity and expression through computers. I think with the term surveillance specifically, it can also significantly reduce an individual’s right to privacy for the sake of “art.” For example, the Suicide Box project, in my opinion is completely unethical and an abuse of ‘public privacy.’ However, that then stems the issue beyond interactive art because it becomes an issue of privacy and security. Nonetheless, because computer vision has a multitude of applications I don’t believe it is at all limited to what it can be used for in interactive art, which is why we need to stay on top of its usage to ensure people’s security.