One of my ambitions was to become a ‘fashion philosopher’, to write in Vogue about (media) theory with the aim to overcome Roland Barthes’ semiotics legacy. Maybe one is never too old to enter this glamorous field of knowledge, so it could still happen! My involvement did not go further than a few encounters with Marlies Dekkers very early on in her career, resulting in a radio program with her, and editorial assistance for my Adilkno friend Basjan van Stam in writing his essay (in Dutch) “The Rationality of the Uniform–Fashion for Philosophers” (Arcade #1, 1989). Lately I enjoyed talking to José Theunissen, a Dutch colleague research professor, teaching fashion theory in Arnhem, who received one of the first grant on both a university and a polytechnic to do fashion research, and whose work I admire a lot. It was a matter of time when the clumsy ‘wearable technology’ world would break out of its geeky ghetto. At least, this is what I proposed in the latest Intelligent Agent online magazine. You can download it on lulu.com and then go to page 27. The interview was conducted by the guest editor Susan E. Ryan and it the editor-chief of Intelligent Agent is Patrick Lichty, who came to Amsterdam recently to speak at our VideoVortex 2 conference, in January 2008.

Here are some of the things I had to say in the email exchange with Susan E. Ryan:

SR: What are some of your thoughts on wearable technology?

GL: It is time for radical prototyping and some very explicit stuff. The danger of wearable computing at the moment is increased invisibility. After decades of carrying around heavy loads of gear, the pendulum now shifts to the opposite side, which is a shame. RFID in textiles is not a good thing. Fashion implies visibility, seduction, and play. It’s nice if you weave chips and LEDs into fabric, but this should be done in order to increase freedom of form, not for some good intention or practical reason.”

SR: You mention designers elaborating wearables (“weaving chips”) but say this should be done “not for some good intention etc.” Do you mean a good intention that is in fact not good, i.e., commercial? Or, good intention meaning just functional and not expressive?

GL: Aesthetics should put us off, disturb us. Beauty does. It is shocking. The integration of technology into clothing has the danger of becoming invisible and merely expanding corporate functionality, which is not beneficial for the user.

SR: Is there a good example of wearable technology used expressively that you have noticed? In the early 1990s Adilkno speculated about data dandyism, written before the spread of the internet in society. The question is, how do we re-introduce the outrageous into the wearable technology discourse?

GL: Who is the Oscar Wilde of our age? Momus, perhaps? How can we imagine walking and talking, dancing, peer-to-peer stations that give [things] away?

SR: What are the implications for society-now regimented into notions of logo-fashion and icon uniforms-to (instead) technologically enhance the inherent quality of clothing to convey messages of all kinds, including personal or counter-cultural ones? Do we need to learn (or relearn) how to have things to say, as well as how to feel free to say them?

GL: Unlearning is a good start. Undressing street wear is another.