The convergence of mobile technologies and ubiquitous computing is creating a world where information-rich environments may be mapped directly onto urban topologies. This book tracks the history and genesis of locative and wearable media and the ground-breaking work of pioneer artists in the field. It examines changing concepts of space and place for a wide range of traditional disciplines ranging from Anthropology, Sociology, Fine Art and Architecture to Cultural and Media Studies, Fashion and Graphic design.

Mobile and Pervasive media are beginning to proliferate in the landscape of computer mediated interaction in public space through the emergence of smartphone technologies such as the iPhone, cloud computing extended wifi services and the semantic web in cities. These dispersed forms of interaction raise a whole series of questions on the nature of narrative and communication, particularly in relation to an audience’s new modes of mobile participation and reception.

These issues are explored through a series of focused essays by leading theorists, seminal case studies and practitioner interviews with artists at the cutting edge of these technologies, who are extending the potential of the medium to enhance and critique technological culture.

By emphasizing the role of the audience in this nomadic environment, the collection traces the history and development of ‘ambulant’ artistic practice in this new domain, creating an essential handbook for those wishing to understand the dominant global technology of the 21st Century and its implications for Art, Culture and Audience.

Contents

Howard Rheingold: Introduction
Martin Rieser: Overview

Section 1: Towards Hybridity.
A History of Audience Mobility

Erkki Huhtamo: Pockets of Plenty: An Archaeology of Mobile Media

Susanne Jaschko: The Temporal and Spatial Design of Video and Film-based Installation Art in the 60s and 70s: Their Inherent Perception Processes and Effects on the Perceivers’ Actions

Martin Rieser: Forgotten Histories of Interactive Space

Adriana de Souza e Silva: Art by Telephone: From Static to Mobile Interfaces

Section 2: Critical Issues in Mobile Art
Critical Contexts and Definitions

Mary Griffiths and Sean Cubitt: Mobile/Audience: Thinking the Contradictions

Jon Dovey and Constance Fleuriot: Towards a Language of Mobile Media

Beryl Graham: Snapshots from Curating Mobility

Understanding Public Spatialisation

Martin Rieser: Beyond Mapping: New Strategies for Meaning in Locative Artworks

Anke Jacob: Digital Media and Architecture—An Observation

Mirjam Struppek: Urban Screens as the Visualization Zone of the City‘s Invisible Communication Sphere

The Creative User

Debbi Lander: Future Physical: The Creative User and theme of response-ABILITY

Andrea Zapp: ‘A Fracture in Reality’: Networked Narratives as Imaginary Fields of Action and Dislocation

Section 3: Case Studies
Locative Art

Josephine Reid and Richard Hull: What Makes Mediascapes Compelling?

Valentina Nisi, Glorianna Davenport/Valentina Nisi, Mads Haahr and Glorianna Davenport: Hopstory/Media Tales of the Liberties

Drew Hemment, John Evans, Mika Raento and Theo Humphries: Loca: ‘Location Oriented Critical Arts’

Usman Haque: Invisible Topographies

Jonah Brucker-Cohen: Wifi-Hog: The Battle for Ownership in Public Wireless Space

The Creative User: The User as Co-creator

Paul Sermon: Puppeteers, Performers or Avatars: A Perceptual Difference in Telematic Space

Christa Sommerer and Laurent Mignonneau: Mobile Feelings: Wireless Communication of Heartbeat and Breath for Mobile Art

Victoria Fang: The Living Room

Arianna Bassoli: tunA and the Power of Proximity

Margot Jacobs: Engagement with the Everyday

Cati Vaucelle: Between Improvisation and Publication: Supporting the Creative Metamorphosis with Technology

Anthony Rowe: Developing Creative Audience Interaction: Four Projects by Squidsoup

Wearable Computing

Lisa Stead, Petar Goulev, Caroline Evans and Ebrahim Mamdani: The Emotional Wardrobe

Katherine Moriwaki: Social Fashioning and Active Conduits

Laura Beloff: Wunderkammer: Wearables as an Artistic Strategy

Section 4: Artist Interviews
Locative

Fiona Raby: Flirt and Mset

Teri Rueb: Trace, The Choreography of Everyday Movement and Drift

Matt Adams: Blast Theory

Steve Benford: Mixed Reality Lab

Drew Hemment: The Politics of Mobility

Wearables

Joey Berzowska: Memory-Rich Garments and Social Interaction

Annie Lovejoy: Heart on Your Sleeve

Contributor Biographies

Glossary

Selected Bibliography

Rodopi, Amsterdam/New York, NY 2011. XV, 481 pp. (Architecture – Technology – Culture 5)
ISBN: 978-90-420-3127-2 Bound
ISBN: 978-90-420-3128-9 E-Book
Online info here.

Hypo Chrysos is the second piece of a series of bio-interactive works based on the Xth Sense (XS), an open, biophysical and wearable technology I’ve recently developed. The work was composed ad hoc for the Matadac Festival in Madrid, which this year explores the theme of Machines and Flesh. In conjunction with this premiere, I’m teaching a workshop on biophysical generation and control of music and video using the Xth Sense tech.

When Valerie Lamontagne was ‘researcher-in-residence’ at V2_Lab, we dedicated two editions of the eTextile Workspace to the topic of ‘Performativity‘. We had intense discussions, and these notes try to give an overview of what has been said and thought on February 10 and March 10, 2011. To better follow this discussion, we will define the relevant keywords first, as we understand them. In between the text, we put statements and questions for the reader. We don’t have the answers; we just want to share our thoughts with the world and tickle your brain.

WEARABLES

What is a ‘wearable’? We define it as ’something designed to fit the body and to stay there when you are not actively holding it’ (as opposed to ‘portables’). The BODY is an essential component, a structure to hold it up, and to make a wearable ‘work’.

Statement: Wearables are intended to DO something.

This provokes the very important question: does it work?? And if not, did it fail as a wearable? (“do” can be both input and output. Input is things like energy harvesting, CO2 sensing, solar panels. Output relates to sound, light, visual change). Remark on the side, to test the definition: Is a piece of cloth still considered wearable technology if you put hundreds of LED’s on it, without including the battery? How is this different from a garment studded with Swarovski crystals?

PERFORMANCE AND PERFORMATIVITY

In this context, performance is defined as an action or process of accomplishing a task, which sorts an effect to a human perceiver. How does performance relate to interaction and participation? KEYWORD: experience. Important: for who is the experience?

PERFORMATIVE WEARABLES

Performative wearables are pieces of clothing that are amplifying the body, adding a question of scale or adding layers of mediation.

Statement: If it is not mainstream, it is called a wearable.

A wearable is performative if some sort of transition/transformation is taking place, during a live demonstration. The notion of ‘live demonstration’ leaves us with another issue: wearables often have multiple lives. Real time (live) demonstration is documented by video registration and professional photography, and end up being displayed in several media.  Some wearables are famous as icons; most people only get to know them through visual documentation. The audience never experiences the pieces up close. Many wearables look great on pictures, but do not live up to the expectations in real life.

Question: can a wearable piece still have performative quality if it is represented on video or paper?

People like to see ‘how it works’. If you demo a work live, it can add to the appreciation to show the raw technology behind: “where’s the battery”? It might as well shatter the dream, but it contributes to the notion of something being ‘real’, another important criterion in considering performativity in wearable technology.

Nevertheless, considering the popularity even from visual documentation only, wearables have an appealing factor. Will eventual performativity come across to an audience from documentation only? If documentation is your end game, the concept should be very strong or it should simply look very good. This is a totally different exercise compared to showing an interactive/ participatory/ performative artwork.

DEFINING STAGES

Our definition of performance implies a ‘stage’ and an ‘audience’. We were trying to categorize wearables by different stages. Each stage dictates or prescribes specific properties the wearable must have. Thus different stages could bring different wearables.

1. Participatory (live demo, experience)
2. Prom dress (special events)
3. Red carpet (show off by celebrities)
4. Catwalk (fashion show, not intended to wear everyday)
5. Live entertainment (on stage, from distance)
6. Demo (in progress, plugged in)
7. Gallery (plugged in, don’t touch)
8. Film (documentary, special effect. Can be fake)

This list is ordered by ‘reality check’. Stage 1 needs to be fully operational and retard-proof to be successful, where as stage 8 can be completely fake or virtual. Again, crucial is the notion “does it work?” or “is it real”?

Observation: we do not wear wearables everyday. Why? Are wearables for special events? Are they simply a statement piece?

PERFORMATIVE TECHNIQUES

The whole point of considering performativity and wearables as an interesting combination is because we are looking for the effect it generates.

Therefor we did a second categorization attempt, this time focused on techniques. How do different techniques make you perform differently, when implemented in a garment or costume?

• Illuminated (turns you into a 2D display screen)
• Shape shifting (makes you freeze)
• Gesture based (interaction becomes an act)
• Networked (adds a virtual stage)

ILLUMINATED: WHY WEAR LIGHTS?

Two reasons: Look at me! (Show off) and See me! (Functional: Don’t run me over).

On a conceptual level, illumination does not have much to offer. Truth be told, LED’s or similar are popular because it is a stable platform (nature of the technology). However: if you ask fashion designers, with little or no knowledge of the technical constraints, to include technology in their designs, they will mostly come up with “light” or “movement”. So there is some natural attraction to it.

Question: does wearing light influence the behavior of the wearer/performer?

‘Barreleyes’ (Dattah + Evelyn Lebis) positions the dancers in a humble position, they are only the carrier of the light source.

Question: can you ‘wear’ light as such?

For example the Chunky Moves performers do not wear LED’s, but the light is following the body with projection mapping. Thus becoming the clothing in itself. This is balancing on the borders, stretching the definition of wearable technology. It is somewhere in between second and third skin. Check also the youtube video on face projection mapping.

Statement: if something is acting as a kind of skin, it is considered a wearable.

Or in other words: is the definition of a ‘wearable’ related to the distance between technology and the body?

SHAPE SHIFTING: THE WEARABLE IS THE PERFORMER

In most cases it will make you freeze, because you don’t want to disturb the fragile technology or you don’t want to withdraw the attention from the garment. The wearer becomes a live mannequin doll. Gliding scale: Who is the performer? Wearable versus wearer…

Statement: People want to touch.

People expect garments to be able to withstand a certain level of touch. They are used to clothing, so they should be able to feel it, explore it, without being anxious to ruin it. Live up to the expectations!! If you need a sign “Don’t Touch Me”, your wearable has a bad interface design. There often is a mismatch between what an audience expects and what (fragile) technology can handle.

Interesting to consider: what does “touch me” in a demonstration setting mean?

Statement: Most wearables are ugly.

If they are meant to do something, then it is about the effect. The effect should be meaningful and subtle. If the wearable is badly designed, it distracts attention. Don’t design for the sake of using lights or any other technology, but do something meaningful with it.

CONCLUSION

Performance and wearables are highly related, yet very difficult to define or to categorize. The main thing we would like to conclude from this discussion is that artists and designers can use performativity as a starting point for creating meaningful concepts. Tracing back from the audience to the stage to the technique to the garment itself. What story would you like to get across? Who is your target group? In what context will it be presented and what do you need to make that happen?

We believe it can be a powerful tool to start thinking from the perspective of ‘performativity’ rather then to be technology driven.

PARTICIPANTS

• Anja Hertenberger
• Jacki Dodemontova
• Melissa Coleman
• Ricardo O’Nascimento
• Lyndsey Housden
• Simon de Bakker
• Piem Wirtz
• Varun Vachhar
• Kate Armstrong
• Leonie Urff
• Nicky Assmann
• Valerie Lamontagne

The Printing Dress is an artistic piece that explores the notion of wearable text and its potential impact on the future of fashion, as well as our social identity. Built almost entirely of paper, the dress enables the wearer to enter “thoughts” on to its fabric and wear them as public art. By selecting materials and technologies that draw on the past, present, and future of communication media, we encourage viewers to reflect on the path that has brought us to ubiquitous digital communication and to contemplate its forward evolution. [PDF]

Artist Kate Hartman uses wearable electronics to explore how we communicate, with ourselves and with the world. In this quirky and thought-provoking talk, she shows the “Talk to Yourself Hat”, the “Inflatable Heart”, the “Glacier Embracing Suit”, and other unexpected devices.

We propose to organize a workshop focused on skillsharing between wearables technologists and the local craft-based Istanbul textiles community. We are interested in exploring the potential for the cross-pollination of traditional with technology-based textiles techniques via the one-on-one meeting, discussion and demonstration of practices that a skillshare workshop can provide. Specifically, we are interested in sharing craft and skills in wearable technology practices and believe that the Istanbul community working in traditional crafts practices has a lot to teach us.

Turkey has a rich history of handcrafts production, which is still very much active and part of contemporary textiles production. We are interested in meeting with a local craft-based textiles community to become more aware of traditional techniques (for example: lace, crochet and embroidery) in order to explore how these may be applied to wearable technologies. In exchange, we are eager to share wearables research in craft-technology with the Istanbul community and explore how these could be applied or used in local practices.

Although much of the trend in techno-textiles (military, health, sports) has put aside “manual” and small-scale production in favor of large-scale and high-tech innovation, arts-oriented research and design in wearables continues to highly value craft and traditional textile techniques. Wearables artist and designers seek out hand-made, small-scale practices found in craft and couture culture, foregrounding manual dexterity and skills. Furthermore, research institutions such as MIT High-Low Tech group have specifically revived craft practices in conjunction with technological innovation to explore new and novel ways of integrating technology. One could argue that much of technological production (the fine motor skills of soldering circuits and attention to detail in coding) also expresses modalities of working which approach craft from a new angle. Wearable research, in our opinion, specifically brings these two “craft” worlds - textiles and technology - together.

The workshop will be elaborated in collaboration with the participants of the Open Culture + Wearables panel and will also provide and opportunity for “experts” in the field of wearables to rethink wearables practices from outside of their purview, and to consider how the tech-centric practices of wearable technologies can be used alongside traditional craft-based techniques.
The goals of the workshop are to explore a) skillsharing of local craft-based Istanbul textiles practices and wearables research in craft-technology b) discovery of new practices relative to field of enquiry (i.e. in the case of wearables/tech individuals: the opportunity to learn a traditional textiles practices; in the case of the craft-based Istanbul textiles community an opportunity to interface with wearable technologies i.e. LilyPad Arduino, conductive threads, micro-controllers, LED/kinetic implementation etc. c) a cross-cultural skillshare of textiles and wearables practices resulting in post-conference sharable experience, artifacts, and documents (online and printed documentation and report).

1. The workshop will take place around one unique textile/craft technique, which is particular to Turkey (i.e. lace, crochet, embroidery).
2. This textile/craft technique will be sharable over the one-day time frame of the workshop.

3. The goal of the workshop will be to see how wearable technologies may be embedded/applied to this traditional Turkish craft - both tangibly and on a concept level.
4. The skillshare will take place between the participants of the Open Design + Wearables panel and key local textile/craft organization members.
5. Participants in the ISEA conference will be invited to drop in, participate, question and observe the one-day skillshare.

6. The results of the skillshare will be communicated within the Open Design + Wearables panel presentation (taking place after the workshop) as well as via post-event online documentation.
Bios of the Presenters
Valérie Lamontagne

Valérie Lamontagne is a digital media designer-artist, theorist and curator researching techno-artistic frameworks that combine human/nonhuman agencies. Looking at the rich practice of performance art, social intervention and interactive installations – she is invested in developing responsive objects (specifically wearables) and interactive media scenarios which interlope the public-at-large, the environment and matter as “performer”.

She is the Founder and Director of 3lectromode, a design studio invested in developing wearables that combine D-I-Y technology with current fashion research. Her work has been showcased in festivals, galleries and museums across Canada, the United States, Central and South America and Europe. She holds a BFA and MFA in visual arts and is presently a PhD candidate at Concordia University investigating “Performativity, Materiality and Laboratory Practices in Artistic Wearables” where she teaches in the Department of Design & Computation Arts.
http://www.valerielamontagne.com + http://www.3lectromode.com
Otto von Busch

Otto von Busch is a researcher at the School of Design and Craft at University of Gothenburg exploring the emergence of a new “hacktivist” designer role in fashion. He has also been teaching the course Fashion and Technology at K3, Malmo University as well as Creative Technologies at Auckland University of Technology.


http://www.selfpassage.org
Syuzi Pakhchyan

Syuzi Pakhchyan is fashion technologist and author with a passion for beautiful code and conductive cloth. After receiving her BFA from UC Berkeley and her MFA from the Art Center College of Design, she began a research-based design practice in 2006 focused on next generation wearable technologies.

Author of “Fashioning Technology” the first DIY book on interactive fashion, Syuzi has also penned numerous articles on the creative practices of intelligent clothing. As a leading expert in her field, she chronicles the constantly evolving developments in wearable tech on her blog, fashioningtech.com, while continuing to develop products that are both fashionable and culturally motivated.

Her work has been exhibited at various conferences and events including Eyebeam, the Fashion Future Event, South by Southwest, Maker Faire and Emerging Technologies Conference.

http://www.fashioningtech.com
Melissa Coleman

Melissa Coleman is a new media artist whose work focuses on the shifting relationship between people, their bodies and technology. Melissa teaches at the Royal Academy of Art in The Hague and the Willem de Kooning Academie in Rotterdam and is coach at the Wearable Senses theme of the Industrial Design department of the Technical University of Eindhoven. Together with Piem Wirtz from V2_ she founded the E-Textile Workspace, a monthly expert meeting for artists and designers working with textiles and electronics. She curated the exhibition Pretty Smart Textiles, which has been on show in The Hague, The Netherlands in 2010 and in Herning, Denmark in 2011. She currently writes for Fashioning Technology and designs interactive textiles.
http://www.prettysmarttextiles.com + http://www.dancetechnology.nl
Piem Wirtz

Piem Wirtz is projectmanager at V2_Lab. Her main interest is in wearable technology projects, where she is not only involved from a management perspective but also in the hands-on production of artworks. Piem holds an MSc in Industrial Design Engineering and participates as a dancer in the contemporary dance group Dattah. In 2009 she initiated the E-Textile Workspace, in collaboration with Melissa Coleman. The E-Textile Workspace aims to offer an informal setting for both critical discussions around and about wearables, and for hands-on work on individual projects. The assumption that the field of wearable technology is in need for critical reflection turned out to be correct, given the fact that the group has largely expanded over the last year. The E-Textile Workspace has proven to be a very successful platform for bringing people together and sharing information. Besides hosting the monthly Workspaces, Piem has been actively coaching V2_Lab’s artist-in-residents. Many popular wearable technology projects such as Intimacy (Daan Roosegaarde), Pseudomorphs (Anouk Wipprecht) and Media Vintage (Melissa Coleman) found their origin at V2_Lab.


http://www.V2.nl
Mika Satomi & Hannah Perner-Wilson

Since 2006 Mika Satomi and Hannah Perner-Wilson have collaborated forming the collective KOBAKANT. They explore the use of wearable technology as a medium for commenting on the social and technological aspects of today’s high-tech society. Conscious of wearability and questioning of functionality, they believe in the spirit of humoring technology and present a twisted criticism of the stereotypes it creates. For them technology exists to be hacked, DIYed and modified by everyone to fit their own needs and desires.

In 2009, as research fellows at the Distance Lab in Scotland, KOBAKANT published an online database for their DIY wearable technology titled HOW TO GET WHAT YOU WANT.
http:www.kobakant.at + http://www.howtogetwhatyouwant.at

ABSTRACT: In their relatively short history, wearables and body-devices have evolved from cyborg-like extensions and utilitarian solutions aimed at enhancing efficiency, to poetic representations and experiences that give form to the imagination through indirect and abstract transformations. These new body-artefacts, in particular those that directly consider the body’s capacity for movement, afford a new kind of performativity that is as much experiential as it is representational. By engaging in an embodied, pre-verbal discourse such works encourage observer empathy in a way that shifts from traditional performance forms such as dance and theatre. Observer can be interactor and roles of performer and audience are blurred or no longer apply. This article examines the emergence of this new performativity. The works cited are examined in relation to Heideggerian notions of poeisis and exstasis, poeticisation and enchantment. An analysis of the evolution of wearables and body-devices in relation to their inherent performativity has been lacking. This article addresses this gap. KEYWORDS: Performativity, poiesis, enchantment, transformables, body-devices.

Rambler Shoes from ricardo O'nascimento on Vimeo.

“Rambler, developed by Ricardo O”Nascimento and Tiago Martins, is a critical take on near obsessive microblogging habits and elicits reflection on the personal nature, amount and usefulness of information generated everyday through blogging and social platforms such as Twitter.

Rambler is a critical embodiment of the (until now) metaphorical notion of blogging every step you take. It aims to bring the practice of microblogging to one of many possible extremes, turning it into an automatic, thoughtless act of diffusing large amounts of slightly ambiguous, repetitive and arguably useless personal information. Manifesting itself physically as a pair of sneakers, it mirrors the trendy, easy going philosophy of the most popular microblogging platform of the moment: Twitter.

This project presents a pair of trendy sneakers that take microblogging one step further, by literally posting your steps on a Twitter account. Messages are comprised of repetitions of the word “tap” and the period punctuation mark, symbolizing the wearer’s steps and time in between these, respectively.

A sensor on the sole of the shoe measures the amount of pressure exerted by the wearer’s foot. This information is read and processed by a microcontroller, which transmits it wirelessly via a Bluetooth module with a Serial Port Profile. This three part setup is powered by two AAA batteries lasting up to 9 hours of continuous usage. Pressure sensor, microcontroller, Bluetooth module and batteries are all embedded into the sneaker. Their combined weight isn’t noticeable in comparison with the sneaker’s own weight and their location is chosen as not to cause discomfort to the wearer.

The name Rambler was chosen for the double meaning of the word “ramble”. On one hand, to ramble is to take a pleasant, even aimless walk; on the other, it is also to digress when talking, losing clarity or even turning aside of the main subject. While the first meaning relates to the usage of the Rambler sneakers as footwear (literally as shoes for rambling), the second meaning relates to the desultory usage of microblogging platforms – with a focus on Twitter – into which this project elicits a critical view.”

Follow @ramblershoes on Twitter.
http://twitter.com/ramblershoes

Also see:

Taiknam hat from ricardo O'nascimento on Vimeo.

“Micro-Nutrient Couture evolved from a restrictive brief based on the premise of zero resources to create fashion futures; without the current mass production capabilities available, what would a fashion practitioner do?

Micro-Nutrient Couture from Emily Crane on Vimeo.

Micro-Nutrient Couture aims to create a fashion experience in a world exploring ‘the constant new’, offering a fresh alternative to the compulsive shopper obsessed with fast fashion, high street consumption and throw-away prices. My Major Project focuses on creating fashion using boundary-less techniques from the everyday – I cook, blend, culture and form ice bubbles as silhouettes.

Micro-Nutrient Couture is a sensory world of transient fashion where no-one but the individual will ever wear the same dress again. Through this unique process and development of new materiality I have laid an innovative creative foundation for future fashion design, conscious of the restraints of our future planet and the impact from current fashion cycles. My methods look towards ‘survival’ as a key factor informing my processes; fashion is no longer a thing of simple beauty, but of nutrition also.

I experiment with materials that occur naturally when cooked up from edible ingredients including gelatines, kappa carrageenan, agar-agar sea vegetable, water, natural flavour extracts, glycerine, food colouring and lusters. This is high-tech kitchen couture.

Materials & Process: Gelatines / kappa carrageenan / water / temperature / natural flavour extracts / glycerine / food colouring / lusters.”