This week’s reading was quite fascinating. It explored the way computers “see” pictures or videos. I had always known that a computer would not have the holistic knowledge to interpret images like we do, but this article helped explain this vision in a more in-depth way, bringing up questions I really hadn’t considered before. As humans, our brains are automatically wired to understand what we’re looking at as we already have the necessary context to understand the item and its use. Computers, however, only see pixels without any specific meaning. Our brains are capable of so much that we take for granted, such as easy recognition, adapting to different lighting, and naturally filtering out unnecessary information. On the other hand, computers need to be specially designed to carry out any of the above-mentioned tasks. They just simply lack the holistic approach that we are so attuned to.
This article also goes on to mention several ways we can aid computers to make their vision more effective, such as the use of specialized cameras and lenses to help their tracking needs. Moreover, this article grapples with the relationship between these tracking capabilities and interactive artwork. It explores the dual nature of this technology, as it can create wonderful interactive experiences, while still enabling surveilamce, a duality which is uncomfortable for many to accept. The article gives examples of several artists who decided to commentate on this dual nature, effectively creating art that uses technology to comment on surveillance itself, creating artowrks that serve as both an interactive piece, but also an extensive thought problem.