I used to assume computer vision worked like human vision, just less advanced, but I realized the difference is definitely bigger. Human vision automatically understands meaning, like someone’s face, while digital video is “computationally opaque”. It basically shows that a camera image is just pixel buffers with no meaning unless an algorithm like frame differencing, background subtraction, or brightness thresholding interprets it. I was surprised that simple techniques like object tracking can detect motion just by comparing the pixels. The vision systems do not have to be so complex. Even basic detection can be powerful if the physical environment factors in the code are designed well.
One example that stuck with me was Myron Kruger’s videoplace. I found it really interesting that early interactive art already used vision tracking to let people draw with their bodies. It made me realize how computer vision can expand the way we can interact with technology. At the same time, Rafael Lozano Hemmer’s work shows more of a critical side. His belt tracking piece turns surveillance into art, which made me wonder whether interactive work with surveillance abilities that track viewers is also training us to accept being watched.
The reading left me to question if computer vision works best when environments are made specifically so that the computer can easily detect it, does that mean future spaces will be designed more for machines, made accessible for machines, than us humans? Like, will there be now more controlled lightning, infrared illumination, and retroreflective material? I think this text definitely shifted my perspective from seeing computer vision just as a technical tool to also seeing it as a cultural force that affects art and even social power.