Breaking of the convention is an argument for certain kind of authenticity. A grimaced face is not a posed face, therefore it must be an authentic, truly expressive face, the real face.

Camouflage repels “evil” gazes. In this game of concealing and revealing, identity and non-identity and over-identity, of the real and the unreal, camouflage just will not relinquish its “excessive” magical function, which both attracts and repels in a sort of a deeper experiential sense, just as it both attracts and repels looks.

I would be reluctant to treat the monocular gaze of the camera and camouflage as a binary opposition. /.../ If we conceptualise the relation between the two as a duality – as visibility vs. invisibility, as watching machine vs. camouflage – then we run the risk of missing the fact that they are absolutely interlocked together and part of the same economy. I don’t see camouflage as being a response to panopticism, because camouflage is already part of the panoptic system.

Take this stuff seriously!

Camouflage was and remains a shield as much as a weapon in this fight.

Facial recognition technology, which seeks to identify the shape of the skull beneath the skin and tissue of the face, is based on the assumption that it can be anything that occurs on the surface of the face, a potential camouflage, while the bone structure underneath it is impossible or at least very difficult to transform.

Disruptive pattern camouflage has become synonymous for military kit. Besides its military use, it is also an icon of its own, a symbol of protest as well as an aspect of fashion.

The collision of image politics opens up an intriguing series of misrecognitions passed between the original photographer, Egyptian censorship formulas and the public audience.