CONCLUSION
'Control as much as you would like, as long as we are entertained, as long as we like the image we are living.' Stacy J.Willis, talking about Las Vegas.
At the end of this long discussion, I would like to refer to the first sentence of this dissertation again, in order to to explain it further, now that it could be understood as a negation of my argumentation:
'Las Vegas is one of the quintessential places to see and be seen, a place built on visual referents: image over substance, visual that supplants experience, a community constructed for the purpose of being watched.' Stacy J.Willis. And surveillance cameras in Las Vegas take advantage of that you are shopping, playing, in other words consuming all these fake goods and atmosphere the city offers you, giving you the illusion to have the freedom of choice, in order in fact to control and influence all your gestures.
Now, what I did with my blog, and also on the 9th of October, is entertaining the public by way of a fake wedding story. So this could be seen as a manipulation too. I played a role in a place where people are used to exhibit themselves and act, and in order to break into your private lives, I made you write a personal story about yourself without you could be conscious that it was a disguised but still, voyeuristic act.
But I went a step further in my approach, which is missing from Las Vegas controlling system: I went over this voyeurism/exhibitionism relationship that seems to control human relationships since few years, in a society based on ‘the spectacle’ (Guy Debord), the objectification and the surveillance of things. By way of a new language, interactive Art & Design, I think I managed to break the '/', this wall separating the voyeur from the exhibitionist, and that prevents both side from any real communication.
Indeed, in my wedding project, the dialogue was complete, the transparency total, the barrier fully demolished. Even if I told you a story, you were aware of this was a story, and you agreed (for the 52 who did) to be part of this fiction and act next to me. You agreed to be viewed by the others and your story to be viewed by me, because I let you watch me making this spectacle.
The relationtionship was equitable, clear, honest in both side, yours, and mine and without left said.
On the contrary, CCTV watches you but you don't watch CCTV. And how this system precisely manages to bridge over this failure in a reciprocal gazing, is by offering you entertainment, only to distract your attention and give you the impression of an equitable exchange. We live in a Truman show, where 'the media and corporations surround us with a universe of illusions. From their high-tech control centers, they increasingly script and stage-manage events, creating the danger that we will find ourselves living inside seamless works of theater that we mistake for the world.'Ken Sanes, talking about Peter Weir's movie.
But what I offered you that Sunday wasn't only a spectacle.
And what you offered me wasn't only a story written on a piece of paper.
It wasn't only about seeing, but also about experiencing and feeling: you didn't know me before that moment, when you decided to stop your strolling in Hyde Park to watch this crazy girl in a wedding dress, asking people to marry her. You were a little bit suspicious at the beginning. But you quickly understood that my aim wasn't to push you to buy or to consume any good. I wasn't a food demonstrator in a supermarket. I didn't mean to manipulate you. I didn't aim at creating a fiction just to masquerade it as facts. I just wanted to share a nice moment in your company. You married me or not, but at least I managed to make you laugh. You were happy, and I was too. It is was a sunny day, there was no fraud in the air. On the contrary the air was light, and your smiles and your interest in my project gave me the courage to perform in front of your curious eyes.
Thank YOU.
Post a Comment
At the end of this long discussion, I would like to refer to the first sentence of this dissertation again, in order to to explain it further, now that it could be understood as a negation of my argumentation:
'Las Vegas is one of the quintessential places to see and be seen, a place built on visual referents: image over substance, visual that supplants experience, a community constructed for the purpose of being watched.' Stacy J.Willis. And surveillance cameras in Las Vegas take advantage of that you are shopping, playing, in other words consuming all these fake goods and atmosphere the city offers you, giving you the illusion to have the freedom of choice, in order in fact to control and influence all your gestures.
Now, what I did with my blog, and also on the 9th of October, is entertaining the public by way of a fake wedding story. So this could be seen as a manipulation too. I played a role in a place where people are used to exhibit themselves and act, and in order to break into your private lives, I made you write a personal story about yourself without you could be conscious that it was a disguised but still, voyeuristic act.
But I went a step further in my approach, which is missing from Las Vegas controlling system: I went over this voyeurism/exhibitionism relationship that seems to control human relationships since few years, in a society based on ‘the spectacle’ (Guy Debord), the objectification and the surveillance of things. By way of a new language, interactive Art & Design, I think I managed to break the '/', this wall separating the voyeur from the exhibitionist, and that prevents both side from any real communication.
Indeed, in my wedding project, the dialogue was complete, the transparency total, the barrier fully demolished. Even if I told you a story, you were aware of this was a story, and you agreed (for the 52 who did) to be part of this fiction and act next to me. You agreed to be viewed by the others and your story to be viewed by me, because I let you watch me making this spectacle.
The relationtionship was equitable, clear, honest in both side, yours, and mine and without left said.
On the contrary, CCTV watches you but you don't watch CCTV. And how this system precisely manages to bridge over this failure in a reciprocal gazing, is by offering you entertainment, only to distract your attention and give you the impression of an equitable exchange. We live in a Truman show, where 'the media and corporations surround us with a universe of illusions. From their high-tech control centers, they increasingly script and stage-manage events, creating the danger that we will find ourselves living inside seamless works of theater that we mistake for the world.'Ken Sanes, talking about Peter Weir's movie.
But what I offered you that Sunday wasn't only a spectacle.
And what you offered me wasn't only a story written on a piece of paper.
It wasn't only about seeing, but also about experiencing and feeling: you didn't know me before that moment, when you decided to stop your strolling in Hyde Park to watch this crazy girl in a wedding dress, asking people to marry her. You were a little bit suspicious at the beginning. But you quickly understood that my aim wasn't to push you to buy or to consume any good. I wasn't a food demonstrator in a supermarket. I didn't mean to manipulate you. I didn't aim at creating a fiction just to masquerade it as facts. I just wanted to share a nice moment in your company. You married me or not, but at least I managed to make you laugh. You were happy, and I was too. It is was a sunny day, there was no fraud in the air. On the contrary the air was light, and your smiles and your interest in my project gave me the courage to perform in front of your curious eyes.
Thank YOU.
<< Home
