Super Bowl commercials teach us how to conceive of surveillance. While Apple promises to fight Big Brother with a personal computer, Coca-Cola invites us to think different, i.e. positively about security cameras. The whitewashing of surveillance accompanies the ‘big brotherization’ of Apple. However, the whitewashing may only be a distraction from another more subtle, more effective (and after all more amusing) progression towards a dystopian future: the constant sharing without friction and language and thus without the distance that would allow for reflection and critical thinking. In this essay, I discuss the symbolic value of the year 1984 and its link to the ongoing move from lingual to visual communication. It underlines that the television screen or smartphone is the sibling of the surveillance camera and shows why the dystopian future we fear won’t be like George Orwell’s 1984 or Anthony Burgess’ 1985.
MULTIFILE
What’s online video today, fifteen years into its exponential growth? In the age of the smart phone, video accompanies, informs, moves, and distracts us. What started off with amateur prosumers on YouTube has spread to virtually all communication apps: say it with moving images. Are you addicted yet? Look into that tiny camera, talk and move the phone, show us around, and prove the others out there that you exist!With this third reader the Video Vortex community — initiated in 2007 by the Instituteof Network Cultures — proves that it is still alive and kicking. No matter its changes, the network is still driven by its original mission to develop a critical vocabulary for this rapidly spreading visual culture: what are the specific characteristics of online video in terms of aesthetics and political economy of image production and distribution, and how do they compare to film and television? Who is the Andre Bazin of the YouTube age? Honestly, why can’t we name a single online video critic? Can we face the fact that hardly anyone is using the internet? What are you going to do with that 4K camera in your smartphone? Have we updated Marshall McLuhan’s hot and cold media for our digital era yet? Who dares? We see the Woman with a Smartphone Camera in action, but who will be our Vertov and lead the avant-garde? Who stops us? Let us radically confront the technological presence as it is and forget the pathetic regression to past formats: radical acceptance of the beautiful mess called the net.
MULTIFILE
In foul decision-making by football referees, visual search is important for gathering task-specific information to determine whether a foul has occurred. Yet, little is known about the visual search behaviours underpinning excellent on-field decisions. The aim of this study was to examine the on-field visual search behaviour of elite and sub-elite football referees when calling a foul during a match. In doing so, we have also compared the accuracy and gaze behaviour for correct and incorrect calls. Elite and sub-elite referees (elite: N = 5, Mage ± SD = 29.8 ± 4.7yrs, Mexperience ± SD = 14.8 ± 3.7yrs; sub-elite: N = 9, Mage ± SD = 23.1 ± 1.6yrs, Mexperience ± SD = 8.4 ± 1.8yrs) officiated an actual football game while wearing a mobile eye-tracker, with on-field visual search behaviour compared between skill levels when calling a foul (Nelite = 66; Nsub−elite = 92). Results revealed that elite referees relied on a higher search rate (more fixations of shorter duration) compared to sub-elites, but with no differences in where they allocated their gaze, indicating that elites searched faster but did not necessarily direct gaze towards different locations. Correct decisions were associated with higher gaze entropy (i.e. less structure). In relying on more structured gaze patterns when making incorrect decisions, referees may fail to pick-up information specific to the foul situation. Referee development programmes might benefit by challenging the speed of information pickup but by avoiding pre-determined gaze patterns to improve the interpretation of fouls and increase the decision-making performance of referees.