[-empyre-] wearables, distributed

[Johannes Birringer]

hi all

I think it was Sarah who wrote that she is interested in the "distributed nature of wearable systems at all levels,"
and i was wondering why that is being assumed, that wearables are distributed?    Did not David argue the
exact opposite when speaking of habitus and the "distinctiveness" of social performativity which would
then seem to require some kind of expressive or articulated difference from general circulation;  
i guess one would have to discuss more specifically how aesthethic and functionalist wearables 
distribute anything, or how they are distributed.
I was also curious about the contention to work from "people" (material) to "concept" and why this is an advantage?
>>
In terms of craft, one of my main proposals is that we work from the material to the concept (or function) – and here material can mean cloth, circuitry, or people. In this way, wearable technology and systems might become grounded in patterns of the everyday instead of being characterised as gadgetry.>> (Sarah Kettley).

Referring to wearables as gadgetry seems to run somewhat against the various interesting points Danielle has raised regarding
body worn technologies; i think I understood Danielle to be arguing almost for a magical/spiritual or metaphysical dimension
of our beloved wearable technologies  ("Despite relatively little advance over the years artists, scientists and other researchers 
rather stubbornly continue to push in this area" --- yes, indeed, a strangely futile faith in the future, reminding me of
the bizarre gestures of Cuando la fe mueve montañas.)
I'd like to hear more about the magic of "bringing us back into contact with our most visceral freedoms"? and how you distributed it or how you incited interest
in body worn technologies as learning tools? 


with regards
Johannes Birringer