Introduction:

This semester, my work has centered around the development and exploration of a flexible artistic framework: the peepshow. Across a series of experiments, I investigated themes of surveillance, curiosity, and control, using the peepshow device as both a physical object and a conceptual tool. Through these iterations, I tested how shifts in framing, content, and interaction affect the participant’s experience, drawing attention to the dynamics of watching and being watched. At the start of the semester I tried mostly to make work without thinking too much because I had the feeling the thinking held me back. But later in the process, it became more a search into what I want to give the spectator, and what happens after the initial encounter/interaction. 

This document contextualizes these experiments within broader theoretical and artistic frameworks, connecting my work to concepts of surveillance, mediated reality, and technology as an observer. By framing my practice within this context, I aim to reflect on the processes, discoveries, and questions that have shaped my work this semester, while positioning it as a foundation for further exploration.

Experiment 1: Framing the Studio
In my first experiment, Framing the Studio, I placed the peepshow device next to our studio, framing a view for Fine Arts students passing by. The device presented a controlled view, focusing on a segment of our studio space. However, this context alone didn’t prompt much engagement—most people walked by without interacting. This setup highlighted the need for a context that not only frames the view but also invites curiosity and involvement. I realized that simply offering a view wasn’t enough; the intrigue or perceived importance of what’s behind the frame plays a key role in encouraging interaction.

Experiment 2: Peepshow Presentation (NO IMAGES)
In Peepshow Presentation, I incorporated the peepshow device into a DOC event presentation by hiding each slide behind the peepshow’s screen. To view the content, spectators had to physically disrupt the presentation by inserting a coin. This created a layered experience of watching: spectators observed each other’s actions while I, as the presenter, observed them. The setup forced a “pay to watch” interaction, adding tension to the act of viewing in front of peers. This version worked well, emphasizing controlled viewing and introducing a social layer to the experience of watching and being watched.

Experiment 3: Object-Recognizing Camera Feed
Object-Recognizing Camera Feed explored surveillance with the added complexity of technology. I installed a camera above the peepshow, using object recognition and a delayed feed. When a coin was inserted, viewers would see themselves on screen, observing their own actions as the camera attempted to identify them. While the setup added a technological layer, viewers didn’t engage naturally and needed encouragement to try it. This experiment showed me that technology can add depth to surveillance themes, but it must be intuitively engaging to draw viewers in without prompts.

Experiment 4: Observing the Neighbors
In Observing the Neighbors, I conducted a personal experiment to explore my own feelings around watching others in everyday life. I filmed my neighbors for a day to observe them covertly. The act of watching made me feel self-conscious and nervous, especially at the thought of being “caught.” Though the footage itself was unremarkable, the experience provided insight into the psychological aspects of surveillance and my own anxieties about covert observation.

Experiment 5: Canteen Placement with Live Camera
For Canteen Placement with Live Camera, I revisited the peepshow in a social setting, placing it in the canteen near vending machines. This version used a live camera with a slight delay, allowing viewers to see themselves or their surroundings. The canteen’s familiar and communal environment naturally attracted attention, blending the device with other transactional machines. The interaction highlighted how situating the peepshow in a public space with a familiar function (like vending) could encourage casual engagement and add a layer of staged interaction in an ordinary setting.

Experiment 6: Public Space Surveillance Workshop (Klanksteen)
For Public Space Surveillance Workshop (Klanksteen), I experimented with public space directly by staging a surveillance setup around the Klanksteen, an open structure with restricted access and enforced rules. I created a watch post in the park facing the structure, aiming to explore the absurdity of open spaces governed by strict, often arbitrary, restrictions. Here, I realized my interest in surveillance and control in public spaces, especially how these spaces can be perceived as open but are strictly monitored. This setup emphasized the absurdity of controlled environments and the layers of watching involved.

Experiment 7: SYP Presentation (Fine Arts Mirror)
In SYP Presentation (Fine Arts Mirror), I used the peepshow device for a group of Fine Arts students. I displayed an ambiguous, low-quality image of a surveillance mirror from their studio, making it unclear if the image was live or recorded. To heighten the effect, I placed a similar mirror in the presentation space, mirroring the view shown on the screen. This setup created complex interactions, as each participant’s unique relationship to the spaces and mirror affected their experience. This experiment highlighted how ambiguity, paired with personal associations, can shape how people experience surveillance and watching.

Experiment 8: Enter the frame (Open day)

In this iteration, Enter the Frame, I returned to the studio environment, refining the setup to emphasize attention and control. The device was placed in a central location, accompanied by a glowing arrow to direct spectators’ focus. The content shown through the peepshow was a live camera feed capturing the perspective of a surveillance mirror, creating a looped image of watching and being watched. Unlike previous experiments, I locked the coin mechanism, ensuring that participants would not receive their money back, prompting them to consider the value of their curiosity.

The experiment played with themes of surveillance and control, both through the content displayed and the rules of engagement with the device. The locked coin slot added a transactional element, asking participants to reflect on their "investment" in the act of viewing. While still situated in the studio, this experiment was designed to attract and provoke attention in a shared working environment.

This setup highlighted the impact of combining visual prompts, such as the arrow, with stricter rules to guide interaction. The controlled nature of the experience—through both the physical framing and the monetary exchange—further deepened the sense of surveillance and the question of how much people are willing to give for access to what they cannot fully control.

Experiment 9: Biecht

In this iteration, I refined the peepshow setup to introduce a deeper level of engagement and reflection. Participants kneel before a "biecht" (confessional) structure, guided by a soft light illuminating a pillow on the floor. The coin mechanism remained central to the interaction, displaying instructions for viewing durations based on the amount inserted. After a brief delay, the screen behind the lattice revealed the text, “What did you expect to find?”—a prompt intended to provoke introspection. Following this, a camera captured the participant’s image, which was used to generate an AI-based speculative reflection. The generated text was printed on a receipt, allowing the participant to take a physical artifact of the interaction with them.

The physicality of the setup—kneeling, inserting coins, opening curtains—imbues the interactions with a sense of ritual. The act of kneeling in Biecht, for example, evokes connotations of submission, prayer, or confession, while the coin mechanism adds a transactional layer that forces participants to confront the value they place on their curiosity. These gestures are not neutral; they structure the participant’s experience and highlight the power dynamics at play.

This experiment explored themes of surveillance, curiosity, and interpretation, building on earlier iterations by adding the element of AI as an observer. The receipt, with its speculative and sometimes unsettling reflections, extended the interaction beyond the immediate act of kneeling, turning the moment into a lasting memory. By echoing the speculative nature of "Observing the Neighbors," the AI-filled gap mirrored the participant’s presence, creating a parallel between human imagination and machine-generated assumptions. This iteration deepened the sense of surveillance and speculation while emphasizing the participant’s role as both observer and observed, questioning the boundaries of technology, privacy, and interpretation.

Framing, Surveillance, and the Act of Looking

At the core of my experiments lies an ongoing investigation into framing, curiosity, and control. The peepshow device serves as both a literal and conceptual framework, recalling Michel Foucault’s Discipline and Punish and the concept of the panopticon, where individuals are simultaneously empowered and disempowered by their roles as watchers and watched. Through the physical and metaphorical act of framing, I explore how limiting and directing attention can imbue what is unseen with significance, creating a charged interplay between curiosity and vulnerability.

This tension is particularly evident in experiments such as Peepshow Presentation, Canteen Placement with Live Camera and Syp presentation where the act of looking becomes layered. In these setups, participants not only engage with the device but also observe each other’s interactions, transforming spectatorship into an active, participatory act. These experiments amplify the relational dynamics of surveillance, exposing how systems of observation shape behavior and perception, while raising questions about who controls the frame and to what end.

The concept of framing also aligns with Jean Baudrillard’s Simulacra and Simulation, where reality is mediated through symbols and signs. Each iteration of the peepshow constructs its own mediated reality—whether through live feeds, staged images, or AI-generated reflections—that is incomplete, ambiguous, and distorted. By confronting participants with these mediated realities, the work invites them to question not only what they are seeing but also the mechanisms and motives behind how it is presented.

Technology as Observer and Speculator

Incorporating technology into the peepshow experiments, particularly in Object-Recognizing Camera Feed and Biecht, introduces an element of speculation and interpretation. This draws on David Rokeby’s concept of “transforming mirrors,” where technology mediates self-perception and redefines how we see ourselves. In Biecht, the camera and AI function as both observers and interpreters, speculating about the participant’s identity based on minimal input. The resulting AI-generated text, printed as a receipt, acts as both a reflection and a fiction—a fragmented mirror of the participant’s presence.

This speculative dynamic mirrors my earlier experiment, Observing the Neighbors, where I used observation to imagine the unseen lives of others. Here, the AI assumes the role of observer, filling in gaps in a way that parallels human imagination but also highlights the constructed and subjective nature of both machine and human interpretation.

Surveillance is both a theme and a mechanism in my work, where the dynamics of being watched and watching others are tied to transactions and control. The coin mechanism in experiments introduce a monetary exchange that monetizes curiosity, making participants aware of their role in the interaction. The act of kneeling, peering through the frame, and inserting a coin creates a sense of submission and engagement, where participants must negotiate their desire to see with the price of access.

Artistic Contexts: Ritual, Participation, and Speculation

The peepshow experiments are embedded in a broader artistic context that examines themes of ritual, participation, and surveillance. Dries Verhoeven’s Guilty Landscapes serves as a reference for how it implicates viewers in acts of observation, blurring the line between comfort and discomfort. Similarly, my work seeks to confront participants with their dual roles as observers and subjects, particularly in how their presence is mediated and interpreted.

Sophie Calle’s approach to voyeurism and storytelling also resonates with my practice. Her ability to construct narratives from fragmented observations, as seen in The Address Book, parallels the speculative and imaginative elements in my experiments. The AI-generated texts in Biecht similarly offer fragmented interpretations, prompting participants to reflect on what these fragments reveal about themselves and the systems that produce them.

Bruce Nauman’s exploration of confined spaces and mediated observation provides another point of reference. Like Nauman, I use physical constraints and deliberate framing to evoke introspection and unease. The incorporation of cameras and surveillance as material in my work aligns with Nauman’s ability to transform spaces into sites of self-awareness and critical reflection.

Reflection: Automatisms, Twists, and the “And Then” Moment

This semester has marked a shift in my practice. What began as a search for an end product has evolved into a deeper understanding of the peepshow as a research tool—a flexible and exploratory device that continues to reveal new possibilities through iteration and context. This transformation has been guided by several recurring themes: the search for the “and then,” the deliberate subversion of expectations, and the creation of open spaces for reflection.

The “And Then” Moment

A recurring challenge in my experiments has been the search for what happens after the initial interaction—the “and then” moment. This quest reflects a desire to give participants something that feels meaningful yet leaves room for interpretation. In earlier iterations, such as Framing the Studio or Peepshow Presentation, the interaction often ended abruptly, leaving both the spectator and myself with a sense of incompletion.

The introduction of the AI-generated receipt in Biecht provided a turning point. By offering participants a speculative, poetic reflection based on their captured image, the peepshow created a narrative resolution while maintaining ambiguity. The receipt acts as both a physical artifact and a conceptual bridge, extending the experience beyond the immediate interaction. It embodies the “and then”—a resolution that is not a solution but a space where meaning emerges through participation.

Twists and Subversions

Throughout my experiments, a defining method has been the use of twists—setting up expectations and then subverting them. This approach aligns with scenographic thinking, where the interplay between the environment and the participant shapes the experience. Whether it’s requiring spectators to kneel in Biecht, introducing a delayed live feed in Canteen Placement, or using AI to produce poetic reflections, these twists challenge automatized behaviors and provoke curiosity.

The deliberate subversion of expectations opens new spaces for reflection, encouraging participants to confront their assumptions and engage with the unexpected. For example, the act of inserting a coin—a mundane, transactional gesture—is transformed into a ritual of introspection and speculation. These twists not only disrupt habitual patterns but also invite participants to reconsider their relationship with the systems and spaces they encounter.

The Peepshow as a Research Tool

Reframing the peepshow as a research tool has been one of the most significant developments. This shift has allowed me to experiment more freely, using the device to test ideas about framing, surveillance, and interaction in various contexts. Each placement—whether in a studio, a canteen, or imagined spaces like a church or forest—offers a new layer of meaning, turning the peepshow into a “wandering communicator” that adapts to and reshapes its environment.

The potential for context to influence meaning has become important in my search. The impact shifts depending on where it is situated, from a confessional booth in a church to a surveillance device in a theater lobby. Exploring these possibilities highlights the scenographic potential of the peepshow as a tool for investigating how space, behavior, and meaning intersect.

Surveillance and Spectatorship

Surveillance remains a recurring thread throughout my experiments, both as a theme and as an active force within the interactions. The peepshow engages participants in the dynamics of watching and being watched, flipping expected power dynamics by giving them something personal—like the AI-generated receipt—in return. This subversion transforms the act of surveillance into an exchange that is both reflective and unsettling.

The incorporation of technology as an observer, particularly in experiments like Biecht, critiques the ubiquity of surveillance while also exploring its potential for connection. The AI-generated reflections, for example, turn impersonal acts of being watched into moments of self-awareness or poetic introspection. This layered exploration of surveillance raises questions about the power dynamics of observation and the role of technology in reshaping our perceptions of self and others.

A Shift in Perspective: From End Product to Research Tool

Looking back on this semester, it is clear that my work has undergone a significant change. The peepshow, once envisioned as an end product, has become a framework for exploration—a device that allows me to probe questions about framing, surveillance, and interaction through a series of twists and subversions. This shift has not only expanded the potential of the peepshow but also deepened my understanding of my own practice.

The search for the “and then” remains an ongoing process, one that reflects my interest in creating open-ended interactions that resist easy resolution. As I move forward, I am particularly interested in exploring the scenographic potential of context—how the placement and framing of the peepshow influence its meaning—and in experimenting with new configurations, such as using the device to mediate communication between multiple spectators. These directions represent the next steps in my practice, where the peepshow continues to evolve as a tool for discovery, reflection, and connection.