Project Summary

The aim of the project was to do a spoof based on voyeurism and surveillance.  Our intention was also to raise awareness of the dark side of fly-on-the-wallism.  Mike Sage was our actor. He was being  filmed in a public bathroom by three different camera set-ups through a key hole while he read a “racy” magazine. 

                                        

While he read, the viewer could see that he was becoming increasingly paranoid and because we as watchers knew what he was doing, we could only assume that this new era of surveillance has made everybody somewhat paranoid about being discovered in potentially shameful acts.  People put hidden cameras in their house for the purpose of catching the babysitter not doing her job properly, or worse being abusive to the children.  They use their cell phone cameras for less than pure reasons.  On the other hand, I am in favour of red light  cameras, and surveillance cameras in corner stores.  The original idea was to have the keyhole viewpoint of Mike projected onto the wall while inside a “viewing box” which was set up on a separate table was a video camera filming the eye of the viewer who was looking inside to see “what was going on”.  While the viewer was watching, his eye was also projected onto the wall at the same time as the surveillance video played in a loop.  Inside the box was the magazine that Mike had been reading in the stall.

                                       

How did the outcome differ from or correspond to your expectations?

There were only a few changes.  Technically I was a bit lost with the sensors, and arduino boards but I can speak about the changes in the actual staging of the film.  Instead of Mike reading some porn in the stall, a skateboard magazine was substituted.  Personally I think that using a porn magazine would not have been a good idea as I believe that many viewers would be offended and yet the skateboard pictures seemed a bit tame.  There was also a bit of confusion over the box.  We presumed that if one or two of us went up to the box and peered in, everybody would realize that this was the main objective.  However, it seems that people really did need some direction in this regard which surprised me a bit.  Unfortunately the peekers could not see their own eye projected on the wall behind them.

Why did the outcome differ or correspond to your objectives?

I thought that when somebody looked into the box they would be able to see their own eye looking back at them which didn’t work because of the sensor issues.  If this had all come together there would have been a strong potential for discourse about surveillance, voyeurism and privacy issues.  Instead we were criticized about the peephole looking like a toilet seat, and the magazine inside the box being a bit lame…or maybe the word was tame. Viewers also complained that they did not know the raison d’etre for the box.  I myself did not think it looked like a toilet seat but in retrospect, if our project could be considered somewhat of a spoof then the toilet seat could fit right in as a peephole.  However, notwithstanding those comments, our group did consider much of the critique to be thoughtworthy.

What would I do differently?

Mike would not be looking at a skateboarding magazine.  Instead I would show him reading one of the original scandalous, classics of our time…..see below.

                                                  

There is absolutely nothing wrong with reading classical crap while sitting on the can.  (a bit of subtle humour)  and I completely endorse  reading a real book without pictures. 

The second thing that I would do differently  would be to put brightly colored arrows on the floor leading from the audience to where the box had been placed.  On top of the box would be a sign, the same colour as the arrows with instructions saying “look in here”.  I would have a completely different video playing on a laptop inside the box…it would be a shot from the back of Mike’s head reading the hot parts of Lady Chatterley’s Lover.  So old fashioned, so corny and cliched.  Harlequin take note!

What did I learn from this process?

The things I learned are fairly practical. I learned that you can never take anything for granted….that not everybody is going to feel the same way as we did about our project.  And that we shouldn’t be surprised or even disappointed when we realize that others are not on the same page as we are.  I feel that the subject of our project is a very relevant one these days.  Have we all lost our privacy because of these technological gains that have occurred in such a relatively short period of time?  I have walked into an elevator and automatically looked up towards the ceiling to see if there is a camera.  And yet I do not feel threatened.  My favourite anti invasion of privacy tool is the call display on the telephone.  I screen my calls especially when the number begins with a 1-800, and having that knowledge is one of life’s bonuses.  

Nothing is impossible anymore – somebody just has to imagine it and chances are that it can and will happen.

How does new media affect or not affect my practice?

New media does not and will not affect my practice.  I have always been interested in older and more classic practices…I have a collection of handmade pinhole cameras, I almost cried when Polaroid went out of business worried about not being able to do Polaroid transfers anymore.  I’m not a luddite though – I use photoshop and I love digital.  But that said, I’m seriously contemplating doing my thesis with either slide or black & white film.