Dorothy R. Santos

Since my mind has been on Surveillance Art the past few days, I couldn’t help but write about it (again). Specifically, my interest lie in the legal aspects and ramifications surrounding this particular art form and its effects on citizens. Aside from issues of safety and privacy, footage of any kind becomes art when you modify what it. With so much altering of anything these days (i.e., photos, audio, film footage, etc.); what is believable, verifiable, or trustworthy?

Last year, I did a Shotgun Review (by way of Art Practical) regarding the art collective, HUSH. Much of their art, let’s face it, may be perceived as intrusive and incredibly risqué art making, which is the best kind because you’re forced to discuss and ponder the aim of the piece. HUSH look at laws (cross culturally) and conduct surveillance themselves. Yes, folks, anything is possible and you may be the subject of art work and be completely unaware.  You’re probably being watched as you read this (imagine that, a camera somewhere recording your actions at this very moment). Something innocuous like reading this blog post on your phone or laptop. Not to increase paranoia but this is the world we live in.

Surveillance is meant to protect and serve people but, primarily, it’s used to dictate the actions of people. Subconsciously, people conduct themselves in accordance with the law but surveillance almost ensures compliance. Or, does it?  Within the realm of art, surveillance may be used to showcase the need for connection with others or how one method of perceiving and communication with the world (i.e., via digitally) has a negative affect (check out The Public Isolation Project). When you know you are being watched, you act and speak differently. There are no barriers other than your perception of what is being seen.

In any case, I will leave it at that today. Someone is probably watching…