wearable|technologies|

A still from von Sternberg's 1941 noir The Shanghai Gesture

Often the use of the word gesture is used in the positive. "It was a nice gesture," for example, is used to describe a courtesy or an act of friendship. Of course a gesture can be negative, a menacing gesture etc, but part of the very definition of the word—albeit rather far down on the list—is this idea of a nicety, a common courtesy.

I thought about this again this week because I was trying to figure out where and how to switch off the LEDs for the "signaling" part of the binder. A momentary switch is like a flash: a flash of light a flash of a smile. In a city of millions these are the encounters that stand out. A genuine moment shared with a stranger.

I have a tiny momentary switch that might fit nicely on the front of the tie or on the cuff of the shirt. I would like it to fit in seamlessly with a "normal" gesture--straightening a tie, pulling on one's cuffs, adjusting one's collar?

Posted by Leah Gilliam at 01:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Above: Handa an old form of currency used in the Congo made of copper...

I’ve always been interested in the spatialization of ideas or ways in which an idea could literally take up space. As a kid I remember finding out that a sculptural piece that had been stationed on the shelf in the living room was actually an ancient form of African currency. Somehow the idea that a metal object with dimension and heft could be used for trade and exchange was baffling to me. When I think about this piece I think specifically about an object representing its value by way of its materials—copper—and shape/form—two crossed vectors.

String as sculpture String as writing...
After reading Talking Knots I immediately tried to find an image of the knotted strings. Although I read that the use of color was an important element of the knotting system I was disappointed that I couldn't find more images of colored khipu.
The monochromatic palettte easily reminded me of Eva Hesse. But when I really looked and thought about the comparison the installation of Hesse's work in space as sculpture seemed to be a major distinction. Khipu it seems was read by hand (like braille) and by eye. They seem decidely 2D.

"Binary oppositions were a hallmark of the region's peoples..."
Aesthetic aside, I was also intrigued by the dimensionality and complexity of the Khipu writing system. Comprehension literally seems to enforce a completely different orientation on the part of the reader. I think this very simple idea that context/history/culture changes how you read and understand things was also apparent. The article suggests that it was not until the myriad codes suggested by the textiles themselves were read and historicized did that the myriad meanings of the Khipu were revealed. Or perhaps the significant detail of the reinterpretation of the system lies in the particular orientation of the readers themselves. It seemed striking —and yet not at all surprising —that the updated database of Khipu meanings is a collaboration between the anthropologist Urton and the software developer/weaver/mathematician, Brazine. Apparently It is an interdisciplinary code...

Sheila Pepe's work...Often crocheted and a web-like organic approach to taking up space. A different secret language of knots...

Posted by Leah Gilliam at 01:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Identity theft
I was intrigued by the basic premise of this article, that individual garments are “imprinted” with a history and “signature” and as a result function as another skin. I found this to be a simple and intriguing concept. Our clothing functions as a covering, a form of protection, but also as a membrane that bears traces of all of your physical peculiarities: your gait, stance etc. The twenty-six wear- features” that Dr. Vorder Bruegge identifies provoked both my interest and my fear. Human fingers plant these traces —the maker—and once they are embedded, they grow and change along with you. Your clothing is alive: your clothing will betray you.

Other Membranes…
On page 164, Hauser states, “a commodity is labor crystallized in an object.” This concept —along with the idea of clothing having a “self-identity”—made me think of the enlivened, at times monstrous pods/game controllers in Cronenberg’s eXistenZ (99). In order to jog its memory and cure the controller's software virus they are forced to uncover its origins.

From Whence It Comes
Last week when looking for a place to eat, my friend suggested a restaurant where the food was “happy.” It was a strange moment of translation, but it ultimately I understood it. We arrived at an organic restaurant where everything was free-range, grain fed etc. It was this general sense of their “happy” lives — or at least happier than most in their positions—that enabled us to consume with less guilt and more ease. We knew where they came from and the conditions under which they lived...

Posted by Leah Gilliam at 07:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Valery’s “Some Simple Reflections on the Body” overflows with evocations and fascinating suggestions. Can an external machine or force do what the body does more efficiently? In what way is the mind’s peculiar activity indispensable in the preservation of life? But I found his ideas regarding the existence of the multiple selves to be the most intriguing of all. I will readily admit that I am in no way confident that I understand his precise theses, but I am bolstered by the fact that Valery himself does not purport to either. In fact after reading the final pages several times I suspect that it is this very lack of understanding that the essay endorses. In his description of the multiple selves/bodies Valery is relentless in his attempts to strip away our sense of possession, knowledge and jurisdiction over “our” bodies. Valery’s notion that everything that is not in the now is “variable and subject to illusion” only serves to enhance his notion that knowing oneself—“the substance of our presence,” our changing reflection in the glass or the gray matter that really defines us—is an impossible dream.

And yet, before I waste away into the ether of a Valery-induced self-referential nonexistence, it seems imperative to return to this riddle, which is the definition of the fourth body. Described as equally “real “ and “imaginary” and as being the product of what the mind’s knowledge is not and the three other bodies characteristics and experiences of the other three bodies, I had the sudden revelation that Valery’s fourth body might not only be refer to the “meaning” of life but also to our very perception of our lives and how we relate to it. After deracinating our psyches from the comfortable home of our bodies, Valery seems to suggest that it all points back to the mind?

Posted by Leah Gilliam at 05:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

While I enjoyed the introductory pages from the Susan Watkins book assigned earlier in the semester, I was absolutely dazzled by her chapter The Design Process. Because it spoke so clearly to the ideation and realization issues that I have been contemplating and confronting in my own creative process, reading this article was a simple case of the right article, at the right place, at the right time. My excitement upon making this chapter's acqauntice was somewhere akin to having read Laura Mulvey's seminal "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema" article as an undergrad in Semiotics 166. As I mentioned in class, there was something very satisfying and incredibly comforting about having the sometimes murky experience that is the creation process codified in such clear and concise terms.

I am increasingly interested in this relationship between art and design. While I know definitely that they are not the same thing, I am curious about commonalities and why the relevancy of an article about design would seem so unexpected.I have always been rather ambivalent about the way that art is described as an emotional and physical process. Even though we have left the era when making art is based on your “hand skills,” we still seem to use action verbs to describe the creative process— making, creating, doing. Conversely, design is seen as a practical, cognitive process that overtly engages the mind and as a result straddling the realms of both reality and ideas. (Design is more practical after all, and good design can literally be a matter of life or death…) Although the art/design distinction is a polarity that continues to blur and shift, I was still struck by the similarities between the design and art-making processes as they are described in the Watkins chapter. Convergent/divergent, cognitive/intuitive, analysis/synthesis , mind mapping and synectics were just some of the definitions/processes that seemed both relevant and applicable.

I met someone a few weeks back who described herself as an activist designer. I have thought about it several times since then, specifically contemplating what activist design might encompass and/or be... I understood the designation to be a meta tag of sorts—to aid in the accurate categorization of her goals and desires. What I like most about the term is the use of a adjective "activist," and its connotations of motion and activity,

Posted by Leah Gilliam at 04:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I was fascinated with Mann’s efforts to detourne society’s inevitable crash course towards the surveilled panoptical-like superhighway. I was particularly struck by his theory of Reflectionism as an inspiration to commit strange and confrontational works of performance art. Like the Yes Men or Surveillance Camera Players whose primary motivation is to frustrate the “powers that be” through satirical or Mann’s work resonates as both political and performative action. Political performance? Performative politics? The different iterations of Mann’s Maybe Camera project was particularly striking because each one presents a simple and easily reproducible action that is casual, fun and game-like in its execution. I love the Firing Squad image with its willing band of semi-informed activists it is reminiscent of a fratboy prank except that is replete with subversive intent.

In general I found Mann’s dedication inspiring and his methodology both fascinating and fantastical. Reading this article raised countless issues about the relationship between ideology and technology. This relationship seemed particularly striking in Mann’s coda in which he puts forth an alternative theory seems to get lost in the layers of self-justification and his claims of multiple levels of detournement. Mann’s paper seems to clearly assert that it is the way that we use the technology that is most significant and potentially harmful. It is not Mann’s desire to create a commercial product that I find so paradoxical, but it is his naivete that a device— with good, politically just intentions—will somehow remain un-tainted in the desire for increasingly “useful” technological devices. Depending on what side of the camera you are stationed and for what reasons, a computer-aided memory device that can recognize faces has the potential to either assert or impinge upon a person’s right to “own” their own image.

Posted by Leah Gilliam at 03:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

"Fashion is the imitation of a given example and satisfies the demand for social adaptation..."

I joked with someone in class that this was an “anti-reading,” I think because I had the distinct impression that Simmel was speaking in facts, delivering information already known to be true. I thoroughly enjoyed this reading and found its ideas to be both persuasive and enlightening. But i did become suspicious of my willingness to accept these at times over-arching pronouncements. (Perhaps it is the knowledge that it appeared in a journal of Sociology that provoked me. Somehow theory is differnt from scoiology although I know better than to think that true).

I found one of the most interesting and memorable points to be this notion of the one-way trajectory of fashion trends. I underlined this statement in the abstract and wondered why —even from the vantage point of 1950—this seemed like a conservative statement.

This prompted me to think about when fashion and trends in general began to cross class boundaries and influence one another in a more syncretic and fluid manner. I challenged myself to come up with an example and thought about the adoption/appropriation of blue jeans in the 1950s. I found a reference to this cultural phenomenon in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluejeans): “In the United States during the 1950s, wearing of blue jeans by teenagers and young adults became symbolic of mild protest against conformity. This was considered by some adults as disruptive…”

A small point, a footnote really, but it did enable me to begin to formulate my own concurrent discourse in what was a very engaging and thoroughly convincing argument.

Posted by Leah Gilliam at 06:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

DRESS CODES
What was most interesting to me about this reading was its organized collection (assemblage) of useful and methodical systems of categorization. Whether it was Goffmans’ the front stage/back stage/ outside region interactional model or Sweat and Zentner’s female personality types, Rubenstein provides a straightforward accounting of varying histories and sign systems imbued in fashion and styles of dress. For my purposes I was most interested in the first section about dressing the public self. As someone who has always been interested in ways that people—minority cultures specifically—define and reinvent themselves it was a reminder of some basic relationships between conduct, dress, self-expression and the larger socio-cultural realm in which they participate.

I kept an archive/file folder on people who specifically recreated themselves as aliens, robots/machines—Klaus Nomi, Sun-Ra, George Clinton/Bootsy Collins P-Funk in all of its various guises, Kool Keith to name a few—and the creation myths that accompany their “rebirths”. I thought back to this list in the section in which Rubenstein discussed believability and identity fabrication. I like the above examples because they —un someone like Orlan who explores personal transformation through physical means—recreate themselves through dress, imagination and mythos alone. One of the reasons I was interested in participating in this class was the use of the term self-expression in its title. I am interested in impermanent transitions , those that allow for fluid and multiple interpretations .

Posted by Leah Gilliam at 05:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)