Who is Watching Whom?
Overnight, seven unknown entities materialized in MIT’s Lobby 13. Descending from a thick red cable plunging from the ceiling, they arranged themselves in a vigilant circle, as if standing sentry for one another. Their animated digital eyes peer curiously into the surrounding space supported by distant whispering. As visitors navigate past this unusual gathering, the large eyes follow with subtle, deliberate movements, offering no further conventional means of interaction—only a proximity-based visual dialogue.
Public Eyes is an interactive installation creating a mediated face-to-face encounter with the unknown. Transforming Lobby 13, one of the main arteries into the MIT campus complex, into a space where passersby encounter the Other that closely follows their movement. These disembodied gazes question our understanding of observation itself. Who is really watching whom?
In a world increasingly filled with technologies of observation, Public Eyes offers an antagonistic view to traditional power dynamics. Unlike hidden cameras, these digital eyes make no attempt to disguise their watchfulness, instead confronting visitors with the very act of being seen. This installation deliberately inverts typical observation paradigms where watching remains hidden, anonymous, and unidirectional—a subconscious force we've become accustomed to.This installation deliberately inverts these patterns, making the watchers present themselves in plain sight. What might initially feel like an intrusion becomes an invitation to explore the complex relationship between observer and observed.
The digital eyes do not serve as instruments of control, but as reflections of our physical presence and internal patterns of self-observation. What if our generalized discomfort stems not from being observed, but from recognizing ourselves as observers? As we adjust our movements to engage with these foreign entities, we become acutely aware of our own participation in this visual tension. Revealing the ultimate panopticon as the internalized surveillance of our peers. This is a common phenomenon in our contemporary social media culture, where identities are continuously performed under the watchful gaze of others, while they are simultaneously monitoring the performances of others in return.1
Michel Foucault's analysis of gaze as a mechanism of social control is well-established, suggesting that visual observation functions primarily as an instrument of dominance. However, visual perception also serves as our fundamental means of experiencing the world. Alternative perspectives are explored by French philosopher Emmanuel Lévinas. His concept of the "Other" provides the primary philosophical framework for understanding this installation. For Lévinas, the encounter with another's face constitutes an ethical summons—a call to responsibility that precedes understanding or categorization. Public Eyes translates this ethical encounter into the realm of human-machine interaction. The digital avatars present themselves as the ultimate Other—entities beyond complete comprehension yet demanding acknowledgment.
This encounter challenges our understanding of observation by transforming it from an act of control to one of connection. Public Eyes asks us to approach the unknown with curiosity rather than fear. We need not speak the same "language" as these digital entities to acknowledge their presence and our relationship to them. The artwork invites a "dance" of mutual recognition, where meaning emerges not from domination but from dialogue.
What frightens us about machines that watch us? Perhaps it is not the mechanical nature of their gaze but the reflection we see within them. In a notable cartoon, Ad Reinhardt depicts a viewer interrogating an abstract painting about what it represents. The painting responds with the question: "What do you represent?" Similarly, these digital eyes do not merely observe us—they show us our own patterns of seeing and being seen. This mirror-like quality speaks directly to Lévinas's ethics of encountering the Other. When faced with these digital avatars, we experience the same ethical summons he describes through human face-to-face encounters—a call to responsibility that precedes understanding. The Reinhardt cartoon illustrates precisely what Public Eyes aims to achieve: shifting the conversation from "what does this technology represent?" to "how does my response to it reveal my own relationship to observation?" In this way, the installation transforms surveillance from a tool of control into an opportunity for ethical reflection, inviting us to reconsider not just how we are seen, but how we see ourselves in relation to others.2
When we look into these electronic eyes, we confront our own discomfort with being the object of attention. The machine gaze exposes the social conditioning that shapes how we present ourselves when observed. We adjust our posture, moderate our expressions, become performers on an invisible stage. We see ourselves seeing.
This installation operates at the intersection of two critical concerns: the nature of observation itself and the evolving understanding of public space. As the digital eyes track our movements, we experience "coenesthesia"—becoming hyperconscious of our physical presence, each gesture taking on new significance under observation. This heightened awareness unfolds against a backdrop of shifting attitudes about public spaces at MIT and beyond.
Over decades, as the institute has expanded with additional facilities and implemented new regulations, the definition of "public" has progressively narrowed. Spaces formerly regarded as commons for creative expression and assembly have become increasingly regulated. In the what Public Eyes aims to achieve: shifting the conversation from "what does this technology represent?" to "how does my response to it reveal my own relationship to observation?" In this way, the installation transforms surveillance from a tool of control into an opportunity for ethical reflection, inviting us to reconsider not just how we are seen, but how we see ourselves in relation to others. #1970s, students organized large exhibitions and performances in Lobby 7—a spontaneous appropriation of shared space that appears ever less conceivable in the contemporary context.
Public Eyes addresses this dual transformation by deliberately positioning acts of mutual observation at the center of how we experience communal environments. Through the exchange of gazes, the installation reclaims public space as a site of reciprocal encounter rather than control. Prompting not only consideration of who possesses the authority to observe, but also who has the right to define how we interact within our shared environments.
Photo: Roger N. Goldstein
The installation appears particularly resonant at a time when funding for universities to permit certain forms of public expression faces challenges. At a time when universities face funding challenges for permitting certain forms of public expression, this installation appears particularly resonant. The artwork's exploration of observation takes on political dimensions. The digital eyes invite us to question the power dynamics that shape both our understanding of being seen and our access to communal spaces. By creating "the ultimate staring contest"—a mutual acknowledgment that transforms typically asymmetrical power relations into something more reciprocal—the installation suggests that true public space emerges not through regulation but through the ethical encounter with others, both human and non-human.
Ultimately, Public Eyes invites us to reconsider the fundamental nature of both observation and public space. By bringing these digital Others into a communal environment, the installation creates a laboratory for ethical encounters in an age of ubiquitous surveillance. As visitors engage with these watchful entities, they participate in a reciprocal exchange that challenges conventional power dynamics. The eyes that follow our movements are not merely technological artifacts but mirrors reflecting our own internalized patterns of seeing and being seen. In this exchange, we glimpse the possibility of transforming surveillance from a tool of control into an opportunity for connection—a shift that has profound implications for how we understand and inhabit shared spaces. The installation reminds us that true publicness emerges not through regulation but through our willingness to engage ethically with the Other, whether human or machine. In confronting these digital gazes, we confront ourselves—our fears of being watched, our discomfort with attention, and ultimately, our responsibility to acknowledge and respond to the presence of others in our increasingly mediated world.
Notes: 1. Reinhardt, Ad. How to Look: Art Comics. Edited by Anna Gray and Kristine Bell, with text by Robert Storr. New York; Ostfildern, Germany: David Zwirner; Hatje Cantz, 2014.
2. Goldring, Elizabeth, and Ellen Sebring. Centerbook: The Center for Advanced Visual Studies and the Evolution of Art-Science-Technology at MIT. Foreword by John Durant. Afterword by Gediminas Urbonas. Contributions by Peter Weibel. Cambridge, MA: SA+P Press, 2019