Sousveillance

Many people know the meaning of surveillance, but not sousveillance. “Sur” means above while “sours” means below. Surveillance is the observation of someone by the higher authority while sousveillance is the observation of someone/something by ordinary people (like us!).

Sousveillance may sound like a complicated term but it is actually commonly practiced by many of us in today’s society. Examples raised in the report include “shoppers photographing shopkeepers” and “taxi-cab passengers photographing cab drivers”. In Singapore’s context, STOMP is an example where people upload videos or photos of others they had recorded themselves. We own many objects that are capable of committing this act, from our smartphones, dashcam, smart watches to smart glasses. Many view this act negatively as it is an invasion of privacy but some argue that this allows the bearer to capture precious yet serendipitous moments in life as the subject does not know that he is being filmed which allows for raw and uncurated moments.

In the context of fine art, sousveillance acts as a tool for recalling an activity and capturing a process. One example of sousveillance art mentioned was light vectors photography. The author held an exhibition of his photographs that showcased his “computer mediated visual experiences”. These photographs were made by overlaying differently illuminated exposures of the same subject matter. The author has also researched, developed and constructed various forms of cyborg jewelry where cameras are implanted into jewelry. The purpose was to act as a personal safety device but many feared that it may end up recording illegal records of establishments or activities.

I personally feel that sousveillance is a unique concept to be incorporated into fine arts, however, it will remain a debatable and controversial topic because of the privacy issues involved.

Maker Culture – DIWO

DIWO (Do It With Others) is an initiative to gather like-minded individuals to collaborate on a project or basically anything. This concept is similar to open source where people come together and build on each others’ ideas and is increasingly prevalent in today’s society where teamwork is emphasized in many institutions and organizations. Hence, an online platform “Furtherfield” was set up by Marc Garrett and Ruth Catlow to support participatory projects.

Marc Garrett mentioned that “the practice of DIWO challenges and renegotiates the power roles between artists and curators.” The line between creators and curators is blurred. There is no longer a fixed or single creator to a work as anyone from anywhere is able to contribute, remix, re-edit and redistribute the ‘source’ materials uploaded. Some common challenges that artists once faced were geographical and curatorial restrictions but they were easily solved by DIWO.

Another point mentioned by Garrett which I think is exceptionally important is “the process is as important as the outcome”. The first ever DIWO project was “Mail Art” – where artists from all across the globe created and steam their art through emails. Email inboxes showcased their ideation, development processes and final products. Every email was considered a contribution or part of a larger, collective artwork. Most of the time, processes are not known to the public and they are not as highly regarded as the final product.

Also, something that caught my attention in the article was “exploring beyond a ‘scripted’ art world and its reductive ‘marketed’ mythologies”. Commercialized art is art made specifically for the purpose of selling and tend to have a hidden intention behind it. As an art student, I find it exceptionally exhilarating to create something out of nothing or to build on some idea in the name of art. DIWO promotes a culture where artists create and share ideas because they genuinely want to not because of marketing or monetary reasons. DIWO helps the art scene to grow and keep it connected at the same time.

This concept is constantly used throughout our experimental interaction course. We work with one another and try to develop a simulation/program/game and referenced from existing base codes available online. I believe that DIWO is here to stay while the idea of DIY(do it yourself) will slowly die over the years. With more brains contributing to the same project, it is certain that more innovative ideas can be bounced off each other, however, the fact it is non-profitable, it will be challenging to bring more artists into this movement.

“Open Source as Culture-Culture as Open Source”

Open source promotes a collaborative culture as it is a type of coding that allows anybody to modify, enhance or to edit for any purposes. Open source brings about debates and discussions on copyright and challenged the entrenched status quo (the proprietary model of cultural and technological production) as mentioned by Siva Vaidhyanathan.

All along, copyright has been given to a single individual/business which gives them exclusive rights and certain advantages. This proprietary model restricts sharing of information which could have impeded growth and development in the industry. One example brought up in the article was how giant corporations like AT&T and Digital asserted control over their source code which restricted scientist from developing and customising their softwares. Richard Stallman was one of the individual who had a strong stance against the model and started the Free Software Foundation to promote peer-to-peer interaction and collaboration. This slowly led to the development of LINUX and GNU which allowed cultural production to reach expensive new markets and audiences.

Open-source is here to stay as the world is changing with rising technological advancements and increasingly tech-savy individuals. However, this rising culture will inevitably lead to many copyrights problems. The community needs to have a common consensus that “copyright is not a single right bestowed on a brilliant individual author but is a bundle of rights that a copyright holder may license to ensure the sustainability and progress of open-source.

The proprietary culture brings about commercial and monetary benefits while the open-source culture brings about consumer benefits and the technological industry needs to find a right balance between the two.