2017 Capital Primario Ordinario

Now that the phenomenon of techno-fashion has been defined, it is important also to dis- cuss how it relates to the broader field of wearable technology from which it originates. In

Computational Fashion Sabine Seymour notes that she would refrain from using the term

wearable technology because she writes, “[i]t just so happens that my bra includes a heart rate sensor, my ring is a notification actuator, my workout pants have an integrated muscle stimulator, and my T-shirt lights up when I dance. It is still just clothing” (Seymour 2014: 2). Yet although I acknowledge wearable technology’s inextricable link to clothing and agree that the many attempts to pinpoint its features have created a terminological mine- field, I believe that refusing or sidestepping definitions altogether will not help to get a grip on the development in question. As outlined in the introduction, wearable technology has been omnipresent in both the technology and fashion sector over the past few years. It is now time to more clearly define this phenomenon, precisely because the process of de- fining can help to gain a better understanding of its characteristics and implications, also in comparison to other related domains such as smart textiles and wearable computing. Within this dissertation, I use the term ‘wearable technology,’ often shortened to ‘weara- bles,’ as a general and overarching label that refers to clothes, accessories, and wearable

items incorporating technologies or technological processes for practical, functional and/ or aesthetic purposes. There are multiple reasons why I chose to employ this general de-

scriptor and definition. First of all, ‘wearable technology’ has become the most well-known, widely circulating and commonly accepted term to describe the field as a whole. It is also a relatively neutral term that is used and understood in all the disciplines and sectors in- volved, from the fashion and textiles industry to the world of healthcare and information technology. Secondly, using a broad term allows for the inclusion of garments involving technologies or technological processes other than electronics – such as 3D printing, ther- mochromic ink, or smart materials2_{. Such an inclusive definition makes it possible to also} address the increasing links between fashion and technology in general. Thirdly, my deci- sion to use the blanket term wearable technology is a strategic one that hints at the field’s origins in wearable computation3 _{as well as stresses the core importance of ‘wearability.’}

2 Thermochromic ink or dye can change color in response to a change in temperature. ‘Smart material’ is a generic term used in material science to describe materials that can radically change their shape due to external influences, such as temperature, stress, and moisture.

3 Wearable computing is the study or practice of inventing, designing, building, or using miniature body-borne computational devices. Wearables pioneer Steve Mann often uses the term ‘Body-Borne Computing’ or ‘Bearable Computing’ as a substitute for ‘Wearable Computing’ so as to include all manner of technology that is on or in the body, e.g. implantable devices as well as portable devices like smartphones. Wearable computers may be worn under, over, or in clothing, or may also be themselves clothes (Mann 1996, 2013). Today, wearable computers can be considered a segment of the larger classification of wearable technology (Dunne 2004: 6).

The development of portable and wearable devices – such as the wristwatch, Walkman, and portable radio – is generally driven by a desire for continuous access and techno- logical innovation (Dunne 2004: 5-6). The current wearable technology trend is con- sistent with this urge for non-stop communication and information access. However, Susan Ryan notes, early portable and wearable computers “were not actually worn, they were carried or held, or placed out of sight” and “ultimately have little to do with the bodily display that is the nature of dressing” (Ryan 2014: 95). While some of the pre- cursors of today’s wearable tech could be deemed “wearable” in the sense that they are small and lightweight enough to be mounted onto the body, most of them were not designed for wear-ability (Gemperle et al. 1998: 1, original emphasis).

As Francine Gemperle et al. argue, “[t]he word wearable implies the use of the human body as a support environment for the product. (…) However, simply shrinking down computing tools from the desktop paradigm to a more portable scale only makes them into mini PC’s. It does not take advantage of the opportunities presented by a whole new context of use. It does not regard the human body as a context” (Ibid: 1). Generally ignoring the cultural connotations of fashion and clothing, early wearable computing tends to subordinate the physical body to pure functionality (Ryan 2014: 95). Yet unless the design accounts for and accommodates the active relationship of wearables to the human body, wearable technology is not nearly as wear-able as the term suggests. Using the term wearable technology helps me to express the vital role of the human body and to think through the differences and similarities between carrying and wear- ing technology4_{. Nonetheless, this broad and common term also has one major down-} side: it does not make explicit the vital role of design, aesthetics, and style in developing or wearing wearable tech specifically, nor its close connection to the realms of fashion and clothing. Several scholars have also pointed to this shortcoming, noting that the label wearable technology does not adequately describe a specific, more fashion-ori- ented subgroup of wearable technologies that makes its way into fashion by notably merging functionality with aesthetics (see, for example, Seymour 2009, 2010; Smelik 2017). As explained, this is the main reason why I use the term techno-fashion along- side the notion of wearable technology, so as to more adequately and explicitly capture the role of fashion design within a specific segment of the field.

4 Although a distinction between items that can be carried (portable technology) and items that can be worn (wearable technology) can be made in English, some other languages do not allow for this. In Dutch, for example, the words portable and wearable are both translated as ‘draagbaar’, whereas ‘portable’ or ‘portatif’ is the only translation in French and German solely offers the word ‘tragbar’.