Reading this made me think a lot about how different computer vision is from how I see the world. The author mentions that a computer is “unable to answer even the most elementary questions about whether a video stream contains a person or object,” and that honestly surprised me. It made me realize how much meaning humans naturally add when we look at something. We don’t just see pixels we understand context, emotions, and objects instantly. Computers don’t do that, they see raw data that needs to be processed. That really changed how I think about interactive art, because I realized it’s not just about being creative it’s also about setting up the right conditions so the computer can actually see what we want it to. I also noticed the author is very positive about computer vision.I don’t think he’s wrong, but I do feel he focuses more on the benefits than the risks, which makes me think he might be a little biased toward celebrating the technology.
The part about tracking and surveillance raised the biggest questions for me. In class, we saw that piece where the visuals changed based on how loud someone spoke, and that example helped me understand how the viewer becomes part of the artwork. The system watches you, follows your movement, and reacts right away. It’s cool, but it also feels like being watched. Even if the goal is interaction, it still brings up the idea of surveillance. It made me wonder where the line is between participation and being monitored. And how does this relate to the way technology watches us in everyday life? The reading didn’t fully answer those questions for me, but it definitely made me more aware of them.