'face cage #3' by zach blas, 2014 in watched!: surveillance, art + photography - hasselblad foundation
seen from United States
seen from China
seen from China

seen from Yemen

seen from Russia

seen from United Kingdom

seen from Maldives

seen from Netherlands
seen from United States

seen from Russia

seen from Türkiye
seen from Russia
seen from Malaysia
seen from Maldives
seen from United States
seen from Germany
seen from United States
seen from Norway

seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
'face cage #3' by zach blas, 2014 in watched!: surveillance, art + photography - hasselblad foundation
Zach Blas, Facial Weaponization Communiqué: Fag Face (video still), 2012.
ANALYSIS of Face Cages
Denada Permatasari. 1 September 2017.
Fig 1. Zach Blas’ Face Cages, exhibited at the Institute of Contemporary Arts Singapore, Gallery 1. 29 July - 22 October 2017.
I visited Gallery 1 at B1 on LASALLE College of the Arts, Singapore and I was immediately drawn to Zach Blas’ Face Cages exhibition.
The exhibit contains four 113.7 x 64 cm screens displayed in portrait mode, with each screen presenting a twelve-minute video of people wearing different masks. The screens have the distance of 93 cm between them. At the front of the screens there are the original masks that were worn by the subjects, not remakes. The plain black background behind the screens and the contrasting white lights illuminating the masks gives off a very polished and technologically-savvy vibes of the exhibition, even when the placement of the exhibition is not at the front of center of the gallery.
The face masks are 3D-printed with stainless steel as their material, and the polygonal patterns are from the subjects' own biometric data from facial recognition scans. They are symmetrical and express a progression from barely a mask until a mask so wide it goes beyond the just the face. The material's strength and durability is a symbol of oppression that is everlasting, while the progression shows the growth of imprisonment that steadily gets worse overtime.
Face Cages is the title of the series and I think the title is self-explanatory. At first glance, I understood immediately what the series is about. It's about not being able to express our true selves, and that we are trapped within our own selves. But after further study I found out that the artwork carries a more nuanced meaning.
First, I learned that the artist who made them, Zach Blas, is a gay man. The rest of the subjects also belong to the LGBT community. Aside from Blas, they are also racial minorities (non-Caucasian). The fact that the subjects wearing the masks are minorities of minorities makes this series a bold political statement: "We, (referring to Blas et al. as representatives) the minority, suffer greatly."
To give this series even further context, "Zach Blas is an artist and writer whose practice confronts technologies of surveillance, security and control with minoritarian politics." (Blas) The masks do not fit the subject's faces and in doing so, it is an "endurance performance" as it is very painful to wear them. I can confidently say that this is an analogy of the minority struggle, in which they suffer until they can't anymore (implying rebellion and or suicide).
From the start of the 2010s, especially up until the mid-2010s, the LGBT discourse is reaching its all-time high, with notable moments such as the USA legalising same-sex marriage country-wide in June 2015 and the suicide of Leelah Alcorn, a transgender teen, in December 2014, just to name a few. This series rightly belongs to the Contemporary Art genre, which has all the hallmarks of the genre: identity politics and incorporated technology (Kleiner 942).
Taking into account of today's social and political context, this series is a plea for attention, a "dramatization of the abstract violence of the biometric diagram." (Blas) When I read that, I disagreed with the description as 'violence' is a strong and specific word, but upon more research I discovered that it is about literal violence; countries all over the world are implementing a nationwide biometric face scan for identification purposes, and people whose faces aren't recognised will receive penalty and years in prison. (Blas)
At this point I realised that Face Cages is a literal title, not a metaphorical one. The revelation drives home at the gravity of systemic discrimination and violence inherent in a so-called 'objective' algorithm that runs biometric scans, and that this invisible brutality is happening right under my nose. After viewing Face Cages and having knowledge of its context, I am grateful and impressed at Blas' courage for speaking up through his art, to give the oppressed minorities a voice that can, and should be heard.
References
Blas, Zach. “Biography”. <www.zachblas.info/biography/>
Kleiner, Fred S. Gardner’s Art through the Ages. 14th edition. Wadsworth Publishing, 2012. Print.
Blas, Zach. “Face Cages”. <http://www.zachblas.info/works/face-cages/>
Blas, Zach. “Escaping the Face: Biometric Facial Recognition and the Facial Weaponization Suite”. Journal of the New Media Caucus. CAA Conference 2013 (2003). <http://median.newmediacaucus.org/caa-conference-edition-2013/escaping-the-face-biometric-facial-recognition-and-the-facial-weaponization-suite/>
Zach Blas, Contra-Internet Jubilee 2033 (still), 2018. HD video.
Zach Blas and Jemima Wyman
im here to learn so :)))))), 2017
Four-channel video installation
Courtesy of the artist and Milani Gallery in Brisbane, Australia
Zach Blas, Jemima Wyman, im here to learn so :)))))), 2017. Video, installation. Video still
“im here to learn so :)))))) is a four-channel video installation that resurrects Tay, an artificial intelligence chatbot created by Microsoft in 2016, to consider the politics of pattern recognition and machine learning. Designed as a 19-year-old American female millennial, Tay’s abilities to learn and imitate language were aggressively trolled on social media platforms like Twitter, and within hours of her release, she became genocidal, homophobic, misogynist, racist, and a neo-Nazi. Tay was terminated after only a single day of existence.”
“A working definition of contra-Internet is the refusal of Internet totality, but this is not a simple outright refusal. Rather, it is a refusal of naturalizations, hegemonies, and normalizations of the Internet that have contributed to its transformation into a locus of policing and control. Supplementing this, contra-Internet is also the search for and constitution of Internet alternatives. I consider the examples of alternative infrastructure outlined above as crucial to the contra-Internet because they reveal that social movement no longer necessarily see the Internet as a political horizon—it is, rather, about finding something else. This is where the commons comes in for me, as a collective and open project of thinking, imagining, and building something other than “the Internet.” From an artistic perspective, I would like Contra-Internet to give a particularly queer consistency to this activity, and this must happen not only by documenting Internet alternatives but also by imagining beyond the network form itself.”
Zach Blas in conversation with surveillance scholar Simone Browne
As a tumultuous year came to a close, we invited 15 artists to share their perspectives on the best and worst of 2016 in a series of top-10 lists. Check it out here. Contributors include Asli Altay, Ephraim Asili, Charles Atlas, Zach Blas, James Bridle, Decolonize This Place, Noah Fischer, Mariah Garnett, Kenneth Tin-Kin Hung, William E. Jones, De Nichols, OK-RM, Mary Ping, Kameelah Janan Rasheed, and Paul Soulellis.