Based on the articles provided by my prof and some further readings, I was able to better grasp this new concept of ‘Sousveillance’. Above is my summary on the similarities and differences between ‘Sousveillance’ vs. ‘Surveillance’.
In my opinion, the primary difference between sousveillance and surveillance is the direction of watch. It is also the main reason for the disparity in their function and other areas subsequently.
Even though surveillance comes with many negative connotations such as the lost of freedom and privacy, personal information leakage and identity thief, I hold firmly to its necessity. I see surveillance and sousveillance as the most powerful weapon to ensure social order and security in general. It deters the malicious from committing a crime because of the severe consequences they need to face if a footage is used against them as concrete evidence. In countless situations, results of ‘watch’ have helped in enforcing rules and regulations. Be it for investigation purpose, tracking records or even as proof of absence.
I cannot imagine how chaotic the wolrld can become if not for surveillance.
Sousveillance is a fairly new concept, developed without a clear intention or direction. Perhaps I can attribute it to the rise of individualism. In modern society, source of power is slowly shifting from minor elites to the mass. The idea of democracy has never been so prevalent. We want the world to see what we’ve got to express, be it through the channel of art or personal discoveries. When individuals attain power, they are also more defiant when their rights are violated. We were quiet before, but we refused to remain silenced. We became more confident to stand up for ourselves and question the authority. We demand transparency as one the principal of governance. We are curious about what we don’t know and we are not hesitant to find out. Perhaps this is the primary reason for this act of ‘watching from below’.
A side-scrolling game is a video game in which the gameplay action is viewed from a side-view camera angle, and the onscreen characters generally move from the left side of the screen to the right (or less commonly, right to left) to meet an objective. These games make use of scrolling computer display technology. The move from single-screen or flip-screen graphics to scrolling graphics, during the golden age of video arcade games and during third-generation consoles, would prove to be a pivotal leap in game design, comparable to the move to 3D graphics during the fifth generation. Although side-scrolling games have been supplanted by 3D games, they continue to be produced, particularly for handheld devices or for digital-only releases.
pROJECT PROPOSAl & IDEALISATION
For the first week, we came up with our project proposal after brainstorming for ideas. We were pretty quick in finalising our concept as all of us liked the ADM theme.
process break down
The entire process was well summarised in our final presentation slides.
Challenges faces by the group:
1)3 weeks is really short to develop a game, we could have included more bosses and levels to unlock if given more time.
2)It was generally challenging to come up with a functional code
🙂 What we did well:
1)We manage to come up with a decently completed game within the time scope, despite all the challenges we faced.
2)We were proud of our original concept and design since ADM peers can relate.
Sneak peak at some of the designs we came up with.
This is a screen record of how the game is played from start till the end.
Do It With Others (DIWO) starts with an individual interest to share. Which leads to the integration of ideas, knowledge, perspectives, and hence breaks the boundaries between working spaces and professions. I find it feasible because collective effort is highly valued and is in demand in the 21st century where globalisation became the hot topic, asserting influence on every industry.
Mr Garrett mentioned taking an interest in different ideas, rather than attacking them. This contributes to the effectiveness of a creative collaboration, and collective effort is the cradle for a greater potential. When different levels of expertise are involved in creative collaboration, a multi-faceted approach to solving a problem can be developed with depth. It includes diversity, expands the knowledge base, and hence is a more holistic way of working together which had evidently benefited every industry.
In ADM, we are constantly exposed to the idea of DIWO. Be it projects, where we brainstorm as a group and take on various job allocations to develop the final outcome, or updates on OSS posts, where precious ideas and even processes are freely accessible for anybody to learn and take reference. Exchange and integration of ideas help us to improve and discover better solutions. Academic matters aside, it is not unusual to see students collaborate with seniors, mentors, and even prominent artists from outside for art projects, for example, regular exhibitions held in the ADM gallery.
The other side of the story, which was neglected by Mr Garrett, can the downfalls of such collective effort. It would sound naive for an amateur like me to pinpoint various negative impacts and externalities. However, I do feel that DIWO might not be the best solution at all times.
Mr Garrett mentioned that DIWO works if the parties are able to drop their position and barriers of power when working on a project. As unique individuals, one’s idea might collide with the rest. Not to mention seniors and professional artist’s ego when it comes to the things they are passionate about. When this happened, ‘group think’ and effective collaboration will be hindered, and so is the progress. I also assume group decision-making takes longer to process, which can be a challenge when deadlines are up and coming. A group with diverse capabilities also means proper consideration is essential for effective job allocation.
promotes universal freedom to study, distribute, create and modify computer software
non – profit
Here is an insightful and detailed sharing on TED by Richard Stallman himself. 🙂
Notes taken in class
Free can mean freedom or free of charge
GPL: Gnu Public License
-foundation of software distribution
-GNU is not UNIX
-Free software allow control individually or collectively
-Proprietary software allow owner to rise to power over the users
-“free softwares” refer to those that user actually want to change instead of the embedded ones
-companies omit displaying bad reviews and media to openly discuss about the downfalls hence people do not notice the importance of security brought about by free softwares
-Linux and GNU are not the same thing
– GPL if you make changes you have to publish it, while BSD you can modify it however you want and hence great freedom and accessibility
-huge difference between GPLv2 and GPLv3, standard GPL and the lesser GPL
"Describe the history and concept of open source as explained in the essay. Some questions to consider: how is the method of peer-to-peer social interaction as found in open source practices a departure from traditionalproprietary modes of artistic creation and production?"
History and concept, take-away
Copyright creates monopoly
It accommodates proprietary softwares and their profit
It restricts sharing, accessing, customising and improving softwares
Richard Stallman could not stand openness being criminalised, and that freedom of speech and creativity is being constricted
He founded the Free Software foundation
Linus Torvalds and hackers founded Linux
Garnered attention of the world
Benefits of open source gradually integrated into the public via revolutionary softwares, experiments and productions with “some rights reserved”
Expands from pharmaceutical products to art creations and many more
How open source is different from tradition in terms of creation / production, take-away
Open Source, a novel concept in the modern world, where presumed monetary gains from the proprietary products such as Microsoft, is prioritised over creativity. Creativity is constrained and protected through the means of copyright because it is commercialised into a club good only to bring wealth to the creator. Richard Stallman could not stand openness and freedom being criminalised, hence pioneered the non-profit organisation, Free Software Foundation in 1985 and triggered a cascade of innovative open source applications such as Linux and the GNU operating system.
The primary reason for open source to be effective is that it mirrors the ways in which human creates, learns and communicates. Also, it promotes user freedom and pushes for rapid software improvements since communal strength is almost always more powerful and effective.
Open source has developed from a collective need, the need to disseminate, exchange information and to innovate, independent of extrinsic incentives. As opposed to traditional production where creativity comes with a price tag, open source maximises societal benefits by being free for everyone. Hence, creativity becomes a “social act” rather than individual effort, giving rise to products that stretch across industries, no longer limited to patented pharmaceutical products and mainframe softwares. Music, Arts, information and publications have never been as accessible before absolute copyrights developed into “some rights reserved“.
When individual ownership revolutionised to peer production, a ripple effect spreads throughout industries. Attracting media attention, governmental support such as renewed copyrights law, public interests and ultimately, greater welfare for society as a whole.