That wasn’t how I read the article. The artist seems fascinated by the way people look emotionless when interacting with computers, not with drawing attention to surveillance mechanisms. He wanted to create a moment of connection between the people in the store and commented mainly on how people ignored one another and kept looking at the computer. I really don’t know where people get the idea the artist’s intent was particularly focused on corporate surveillance.

Of course, death of the artist and all that - if people read it as a piece about surveillance capitalism then that’s what the art is about regardless of what the artist thinks it’s about.