In the article Computer Vision for Artists and Designers, the author explains how computer vision has become more accessible for artistic use, and I agree with the enthusiasm about its potential. Unlike human vision, which can interpret context and meaning naturally, computer vision relies on algorithms to process visual data, such as detecting objects, movement, or brightness. There are specific techniques like removing the background or altering the brightness that help computers to track what we are interested in, even though they lack human intuition.
The article showcases how artists like Myron Krueger have creatively used computer vision for interactive art, but I believe it could have addressed more about the ethical implications of using this technology. For instance, projects like David Rokeby’s Sorting Daemon and the Suicide Box by the Bureau of Inverse Technology highlight computer vision’s potential for surveillance, which raises privacy concerns in public spaces. This capacity for tracking can be both an asset and a concern, as it allows for innovative art while also presenting risks in terms of surveillance.
In conclusion, while I agree with the article’s excitement about the possibilities of computer vision in the arts, it could have explored more about its potential ethical impacts, especially with its ability to monitor and track people. Balancing creativity and responsibility is essential when using such powerful tools in interactive art.