phoenix /danm 201 /wearable /weartech

Wearable Technology and the Tethered Self

Wearable and tethered technology is a direct expression of the dream of an augmented self.  As Sherry Turkle describes, there is a contemporary desire to bring technology closer to the self, to incorporate new technologies into ones identity.  Turkle's illustration of cell-phones, in particular, and how adults differ from children in their engagement with the technology is cogent.  Adults often think of communications technology as separate, whereas children appear to use cell-phones as if they were a new sense.  Turkle does fall into the pit of nostalgia, bemoaning the differences she sees in her children and the part that technology plays in their development.  There is always a trade-off when new technology is introduced and gains mass appeal.  On the one hand the technology may make life easier in one direction, for instance the instant ability to communicate with anyone anywhere, whenever you want.  On the other hand, the technology creates new needs and expectations, for instance the ability to always be reachable, shrinking ones available personal space.  This is the price we pay in a society of spectacle, where words such as “new” have a particular power to persuade and influence.  There is little thought given to the potentially far reaching societal impact of a new device or technology, beyond the immediate desire of the producer to sell a product, and a consumer to find one new toy that they hope will fill some need they probably were unaware they ever had.

Susan Elizabeth Ryan attempts to locate what wearable technology art is, largely unsuccessfully.  She illustrates that wearable technology art is not a singular practice, but rather many practices across many locations and groups.   I think she misses a few points, namely that the location of “wearable technology art” is inherent in the name itself.  “Wearable” implies the body, which implies the self, identity, and gender.  While she does touch on this in small ways, her focus on practice fails to come back around to this central point in any meaningful way.  I wonder if a different approach might be more meaningful.  Rather than thinking of different approaches to wearable technology as separate, and as separate from the self, I wonder if we could approach wearable technology art as similar to software.  We don't assume with software that every program will have the same methodologies, ideas, or meanings.  There are many software practices and approaches.  Ultimately we judge software on its suitability to a particular problem or idea, and its effectiveness in its interactions with the user.  Similarly, we can judge wearable technology on the merits of the ideas that individual pieces and methods represent, and how successfully it relates to the self.    

One of the most interesting social spaces, which Ryan largely does not mention, where experimentation with wearable technology art is being made is the DIY (Do It Yourself) movement.  Graffiti Research Laboratories, Instructables, Maker Fair, Craft and Make Magazine, Leah Buechly  and the Arduino Lily Pad, and many others have all been instrumental in pushing the doors wide open to new ideas and innovation in the realm of wearable technology art.