Introduction: On the bandwagon or beyond wearable computing?

What is it that makes wearable technology so compelling? The recent fashion shows depicting fanciful yet non-functional units suggest a purely aesthetic motive inspired by earlier generations of functional units. Indeed, at a San Francisco bar/ restaurant, after a lecture series I once gave on the West Coast, someone almost reached out and touched me and the early live and open 6000 volt cathode-ray-tube-based system I was wearing. You see, it's become a West-Coast phenomenon to wear non-functioning electronic devices as a fashion statement, and of course these become focal points for curious hands, just like slash-andburn scarification, multiple body piercings, and various other freakshow fashions. Not just to say that people are losing respect for live electric circuits (not that unwanted touching has ever been an acceptable thing), but moreover to ask the question: 'Are wearables exciting because they look strange?'. 1 hope not, for otherwise we've become a Spectacular Research Society. In an era when we could rigorously explore some of the early visions of wearable computing, let us not instead build a field of fluff in the society of the spectacle. Hence a reasonable question to ask in the postmodem era of absent objective scientific reality (e.g. predicting the future and inventing science through vociferous assertion) and the pastmodem era of wearable computing fashion shows, is: 'What are the real scientific, and theoretical issues?', or 'Where is the real research?'. And this 'real research' can certainly include the work of hobbyists, tinkerers, and other pass ionate individuals, who, though without the budget or means of major research labs, are nevertheless the ones that invented the field; that work was seminal and will hopefully continue to inspire scientific thought by others. Such efforts, although outside the traditional academic research labs, if taken seriously, have and will continue to be of great value. It is these very efforts that should be built upon using the vast funding and infrastructure of major academic research labs, while leaving the hype to be taken care of by the spectacular commodity society outside the academic environment. Hype tends to feed upon itself and certainly doesn't need funding or philanthropy to flourish. Moreover, early work in wearable computing was characterised by a healthy absence of any hegemonic 'alpha male' phenomenon it was driven by passion for truth, discovery, and exploration, free of vociferous assertion for the purpose of building an empire. Thus, the 1970s and 1980s perhaps constitute the 'golden era' of wearable computing the era in which the work was driven by passion rather than desire for disciples. It is my hope that we will see a return to some of these values in the coming years, and that thoughts and ideas will follow a stream of meritocracy (advancement based on ability or past achievement) rather than any vociferous leader. It is truly a field in which individuals can make up their own minds rather than blindly looking to others for facts, concepts, or information they can verify or gather themselves. The true spirit of science (including the true spirit of the high-school hobbyist tinkering in the basement at home) is one of verification of basic 'facts', and of personal empowerment through reliance on self. And not to say, either, that quality and depth of research need be limited to science and engineering. There are also many great and worthy avenues of pursuit for wearable computing as it pertains to the fine-arts, to philosophy, to scholarly cultural criticism, etc. Indeed, these remain as areas characterised by healthy dissidence and healthy individual free-spirited thinking.