Surveillance has a long history of architecture and society. In the course of history and modernity, as a rule, the monitoring process, a symbol of power has been used. Recently it was used to ensure or to show the attempt, the security in urban areas. This has increased the complexity of the topic and expanded the scope. Power, control, sex, fear and suspicion are woven into the surveillance zone. As the monitoring tools used in architecture and the urban environment? What are the consequences and implications for the future?
Transparency, accountability and the first architecture, with the rise of the Panopticon of Jeremy Bentham in the late 18th Century met. The panopticon was a prison, could see where a minimum number of guards designed all prisoners. The cells are in prison perimeter patrols, creating a strong background lighting of the prisoners. The center of the round was hidden, the prison guard tower, the guards inside. In this configuration, it was for the guards to see exactly what the prisoners were always simple. However, there was more to the prison cells. Because the guards could not be seen, had to accept the prisoners that they have observed. So, as Hille Koskela says in “The look, without eyes: video-surveillance and the changing nature of” urban area “, while the Panopticon allegedly trapped in the body, it is actually meant for the psyche: in this mechanism of “the soul is the prison of the body.” “It’s interesting because Koskela argues that monitoring is not only a moving body control in space, but also affects the esprit de corps. constantly consulted by a power unseen and unknown to a trial, the social norms is likely to follow. The spirit and soul are forced to behave the body in an acceptable manner. While the body locked up, the soul is. Michel Foucault suffers adds: “The visibility is a trap. It is this view that modern society, its control of power and knowledge practices.” Like the panopticon, see the visibility of the body, but deals change in the mind. Visibility is forcing people to social norms, to meet the requirements set by the Government.
Many people see an addition between the panoptic surveillance and modern video and Closed Circuit Television (CCTV). Increased anxiety, especially after 9 / 11 has led to a rapid increase in the number and density of monitoring in the modern cities. The first use of video surveillance has been observed in 1942 for the launch of the V-2 rockets. Olean, New York was the first city to try to put CCTV on the main road to fight against crime. The next step was the use of video surveillance in banks try to prevent theft by customers, foreigners, and staff. With the growing fear of terrorism and crime in the 1990s and 2000s, it was inner-city areas of continuous monitoring. Although the aim is to deter crime, most CCTV images are useful to collect in the solution of crimes and evidence. the filmed material was used to identify the perpetrators of the London Underground, and the route is regularly used to monitor the movements of the missing children. Privacy issues are also discussed, with many critics fear that the technology violates the protection of privacy and civil liberties. However, advocates argue that the cameras in public spaces where one can never expect much privacy surveillance anyway.
The increase in surveillance in urban areas has led to a variety of effects and consequences of the observations of the camera. By examining the changing nature of urban space, Koskela observed three types of space: space as a container, the power of space and emotional space. Further observations were made on the allocation of space, of exclusion and division, and a blurring between public and private.
Space research as a container includes the effects of life on a monitor when space as a container for the social activity in the eye of the camera is set included. Koskela suggests that after several negative things in this process. First, the camera is removed from the scene included in several respects. The first is that it is designed to solve crimes, not prevent it, therefore, do the work in a time different than the one we live in. Secondly, as with the panopticon, not us, someone behind the Camera or not, and if there are, their location is unknown. This leads to fear and skepticism toward the camera and the urban area covers. If something happens, maybe the person behind the camera is too far away to do something. Third, the camera sees the scene as an object has no content and interaction effect on him. At the same time, both forms of surveillance are transparent and opaque. Everything under control is always visible, while the sources are becoming increasingly opaque, one effect of the uncertainty produced by the public. Finally, to the room containing an objectified reality shows where the image displaces reality. It is reminiscent of a stage. People move in and out of the frame the view or in the stadium. The living world is in a 2D projection of the empty world transformed by human contact, so the sense of people as objects in a container. This is reminiscent of observations Eddy cells waxworks, saying “they are like so many cages, so many small theaters, in which each actor is alone, perfectly individualized and constantly visible.” This is a very important link because Foucault also argues that the visibility is used to control the power and the society to preserve knowledge. This link suggests that the use of CCTV helps in maintaining the structures of social hierarchy in the home, with the power in the hands of the remains invisible.
Power-room is located on studies on the effects, such as video surveillance can interact. What is easily observed that the surveillance is not a condition for neutral. “Looking connotes power, powerlessness and watching.” Monitoring the city is transformed into a panopticon, the binding power, knowledge and space. It is a very intriguing idea, wonder if the urban area is actually under the supervision of a mental prison, behavior, social norms set by those in power. The cameras are used to try to prevent deviant behavior through the control of individuals by regulating the room. But the lines are not clear about who has the power. Many cameras are privately owned, making it impossible to know who is at the other end of the camera. Gender issues are also taken into account, because women often under observation, and the men are usually behind the camera. To complicate the matter sex, feminist theory dictates that the identity largely formed by, and power relations. This means that the anonymous surveillance can have a negative effect on the identity and raises questions about using the camera as a tool for harassment.
emotional space trying to understand the emotional impact of being under observation. Although the obvious goal is the urban environment safer and instill an ambivalent feeling of safety, attitudes often. Some feel guilty, anxious and uncertain about who sees, and it can create feelings of vulnerability. For a woman alone in a subway station, the camera can make them feel confident and dangerous. Who’s Watching? Under the control of the camera is not in the situation under control.
Modern and evolving technology has even given rise to new forms of surveillance and the panopticon. Mark Post sees our networked world as “Superpanopticon, a system of surveillance without walls, windows, towers or guards.” People with camera phones to photograph and respond to events via SMS in real-time information communication networks. Implicit is that the public are now controlled by the public. They are more surveillance cameras, the only form of monitoring and control, the maintenance of the general population using similar methods to the social behavior and record events to control in the city. The Participatory Panopticon by James Casco, this development of technology and surveillance is known to a whole new form of surveillance architecture and the digital space.
Surveillance technology offers a new perspective on the creation, slide and transparency limits. Boundaries are where the camera set cover, cover or end, a change in space, which means social contact and control. While the camera is the physical demarcation of the border, the lines are invisible, transparent. Monitoring also allows for a shift of borders. The transfer of the events are in one place at a remote location via the camera, the boundaries are more accurate and natural, and events not included in the room they are in. among these possibilities, we also see that borders have become transparent and indeterminate, the expansion of the zone of influence of a particular site.
As for transparency, monitoring complex series of interactions with the space and experience. With influence and contain flattened space, objectifying men of power and influence emotions and perceptions of people, surveillance, combined with the architecture, the choice has to be interesting or seen with ambivalence. My interest lies in the spatial quality of monitoring and social impact. How can the monitoring be used? Diller Scofidio have several projects transparency and cameras that give a good overview of issues and applications, discuss architecture. Case studies of these projects are a valuable addition to the research. ‘Jump Cuts “,” transparency and fax using the proposed facility “all sky” cameras and defy expectations and change the apparent reality. The display of man and space are manipulated with the device photo. Although not as invasive as CCTV cameras in the project to objectify people themselves, remove them from social contact with the audience, and shows them, subjects them to the control of the population in the privileged position to observe.
