(edited from wk 7 CST for YesNaturally chapter)
the symbol of surveillance
“Is mark making a necessary condition for symboling?” (Malafouris 180)
“She peered through the window before she went around to the door, the journalist in her wanting to fix an image of the moment in her mind before she moved in and disturbed it. That was the problem with being a reporter — everything changed the instant you started reporting on it. By now, there wasn’t a person alive who didn’t know what it means to be in the presence of a reporter. She was a roving Panopticon.” (Doctorow 414)
This week in CST/3D lab, Tinkercad was undergoing maintenance once again, so the class took advantage of the time to demonstrate how 3D scanning worked. We discussed the politics of 3D scanning bodies: Can we assume that the “next big thing” is a good thing? There are social repercussions of literally objectifying people through this technology. What actions do we need to take to defend this from spiraling out of control?
One assumption is that scanning data leads to “greater” knowledge of information (i.e. identification). This confronts the issue of accessibility to data and the power that is inherited from it. How will 3D scanning technologies put different bodies at risk and on display?
Like photography, 3D scanning has the potential to change the way that we think about ourselves in the world. But is photography a choice or an assumed power? Do women really have a choice when we live in a world of ubiquitous surveillance/monitoring/scanning?
“To suffer is one thing; another thing is living with the photographed images of suffering, which does not necessarily strengthen conscience and the ability to be compassionate. It can also corrupt them. Once one has seen such images, one has started down the road of seeing more – and more. Images transfix. Images anesthetize.”– Susan Sontag