The MIT Press Journals http://mitpress.mit.edu/journals

This article is provided courtesy of The MIT Press. To join an e-mail alert list and receive the latest news on our publications, please visit: http://mitpress.mit.edu/e-mail

A R T I S T ’ S A R T I C L E

Existential Technology: WearableComputing Is Not the Real Issue!

Steve Mann

As our world becomes more and more glob-ally connected, the official hierarchies of corporations andgovernments become larger and more complicated in scope,often making the chain of command and accountability moredifficult for an individual person to question. Bureaucraciesspanning several countries provide layers of abstraction andopacity to accountability for the functionaries involved in suchofficial machinery. Thus, policy affecting our everyday life ismoved further from our ability to influence, affect or even un-derstand it. At the same time, the increased use of surveillanceand monitoring technologies makes the individual more vul-nerable to, and accountable to, these very organizations thatare themselves becoming less accountable to the surveilledpopulace.

In this paper, I propose the concept of “Existential Tech-nology” as the technology of self-determination and masteryover our own destiny, and I provide several examples ofin(ter)ventions (new inventions I filed with the Patent Officeas well as new interventions). In this article I deliberately con-flate the terms invention and intervention, as I did in my re-cent exhibit at Gallery TPW, Prior Art: Art of Record [1]. (Theterms “Prior Art” and “Art of Record” are commonly used inpatent law.)

My performances and in(ter)ventions attempt to reflect thetechnological hypocrisies of large bureaucratic organizationson a moralistic (or humanistic) level byway of firsthand encounters with low-level“clerks,” rather than the more traditionalapproach of writing letters to manage-ment, politicians or the like. By mirror-ing the structures of bureaucracy andcomplexity, I engage in a Reflectionist ap-proach that I have found is, in many situations, surprisingly far more success-ful than writing letters to high-level offi-cials [2].

Ironically, Existential Technologyserves to empower the individual by dis-empowering the individual of responsi-bility for his or her own actions.Empowerment is achieved through self-demotion (e.g. assuming a low rank inthe corporate hierarchy of a subservience

services corporation such as the Ex-istential Technology Corporation).In the same way that large “covern-ments” (convergence of multiplegovernments corrupted by interestsof global corporations) are em-powered by being less accountablefor their actions, existential tech-nologies allow individuals to self-bureaucratize in order to achieve abalance of bureaucracy when deal-ing with government organizations.

Existentialist theory holds that in-dividuals are entirely free, thus en-tirely responsible. Clerks and functionaries, however, are notfree, or at least can allege to be not free, and thus, ironically,are in some ways more free to escape responsibility or ac-countability for their actions. In the existentialist tradition, myapparatus of computer-mediated reality (e.g. wearing a com-puter and living in a computer-generated world) suggests theabsurdity of reality that is so much a part of existentialist think-ing [3].

Existentialism is not a philosophy but a label for severalwidely different revolts against traditional philosophy. The re-fusal to belong to any school of thought and a marked dissat-

© 2003 ISAST LEONARDO, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 19–25, 2003 19

A B S T R A C T

The author presents “Existen-tial Technology” as a newcategory of in(ter)ventions andas a new theoretical frameworkfor understanding privacy andidentity. His thesis is twofold: (1) The unprotected individualhas lost ground to invasivesurveillance technologies andcomplex global organizationsthat undermine the humanisticproperty of the individual; (2) Away for the individual to be freeand collegially assertive in sucha world is to be “bound tofreedom” by an articulablyexternal force. To that end, theauthor explores empowermentvia self-demotion. He hasfounded a federally incorporatedcompany and appointed himselfto a low enough position to bebound to freedom within thatcompany. His performances andin(ter)ventions over the last 30years have led him to an under-standing of such concepts asindividual self-corporatizationand submissivity reciprocity forthe creation of a balance ofbureaucracy.

Steve Mann (mailroom clerk), University of Toronto,Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering,Mailstop S.F. B540, 10 King’s College Road, Toronto,Ontario, Canada, M5S 3G4. E-mail:<mann@eecg.toronto.edu>.

Fig. 1. Installation of SeatSale: Seating Made Simple, at the San Francisco Art Institute,2001. (© Steve Mann)

Leonardo_36-1_001-098 1/24/03 9:24 AM Page 19

isfaction with traditional philosophy assuperficial form the heart of existential-ism [4]. Thus, in formulating the con-cept of Existential Technology, Ideliberately try to avoid making it tooclear upon exactly whose shoulders I amstanding, yet in so doing, I follow the (ex-istentialist) tradition of not following atradition.

The true spirit of much of existential-ism includes many of the great moralquestions raised in response to the riseof totalitarian covernment regimes [5].

Ordinarily it is said that “necessity isthe mother of invention.” In other words,there is first an “essence” (abstract idea,a need); later, invention brings it into “ex-istence” (reduction to practice). How-ever, I more often find myself inventingsomething from within my own heart,not to satisfy any specific known need.Only later, after reduction to practice,when I begin using the apparatus of myinventions, do I discover their meaning.For example, after wearing a computerfor more than 20 years, I am only now be-ginning to understand what it all meansand why I came up with what at the timeseemed to others to be a totally uselessinvention.

I refer to these inventions, where theirexistence (reduction to practice) pre-cedes their essence, as “Existential Tech-nology.”

I begin by describing some of my “cy-borg” in(ter)ventions over the past 30years, during which I invented, designedand built experimental apparatuses forvarious experiments, which were also per-formances. My experimental subjectswere often drawn from the followinggroups:

• gambling casino owners• security guards at gambling casinos• security guards in department stores

where video surveillance was beingused extensively

• customs officials• other officials involved in placing our

society under surveillance and whowere fearful of being placed undersurveillance themselves.

I then summarize, within a theoreticalframework, what I have learned fromthese in(ter)ventions.

SE ATSALEThe over-protection of intellectual “prop-erty” has emerged as a situation thatcould threaten scholarly discourse, com-puter science and fair use.

Take, for example, the “purchase” of atypical computer or computer program.

What we now often have is a change fromwhat might once have been a purchaseinto a license. I addressed the complex-ity of this paradigm shift in a recent trav-eling art installation entitled SeatSale:Seating Made Simple, in which a simple ob-ject, a chair, was connected to a globalcomputer network with a license man-ager. Rather than owning the chair, theuser licenses the use of the chair. Slidinga credit card through a slot in the chaircauses 23 seat spikes to retract, for theduration of the “Seating License™” [6](Fig. 1).

The complicated array of computers,servers and other equipment in the 19-in relay rack (”License Manager,” “Li-cense Server,” etc.) is juxtaposed with thecorporate slogan “Seating Made Simple.”Downloading a “Free Seating License™”causes the solenoid-activated seat spikesto retract for a certain time period. Theword “free” is used with jest, in the sensethat although there is zero monetary cost(the credit card is for “identification pur-poses only”), the true cost is the loss ofprivacy and the loss of freedom to sit with-out asking for permission from a globalSeating Services™ provider.

The point of SeatSale was to show howthe protection of “Intellectual Property”violates something one might call theright of “Humanistic Property” [7].

CONSENSUS TACTICS:O UIJAGREE AS CONSENSUALDISSENTShortly after SeatSale, I created a perfor-mance piece called Ouijagree. On Friday,5 January 2001, at 18:12:34 EST, Iplugged in a new computer for the firsttime. Like many new computers, it hadbeen “tagged” with unsolicited advertis-ing, including a sticker reading “De-signed for Microsoft Windows 2000.” Iwondered how this corporate tag was anydifferent from graffiti that kids use to tagtheir gang’s territory. The computer alsoseemed to have been tagged internallywith some unsolicited advertising as well,because a software message popped upon the screen indicating Terms and Con-ditions, which I certainly did not agreewith. (I had not asked for any softwarefor this computer since I ordinarily useonly open-source software such as GNULinux.) Among other things, the Termsand Conditions forbid the practice of sci-ence (e.g. trying to understand how aprogram works, its underlying opera-tional principles, etc.). So, having threestudents (Ryan V. Fung, Ashish J. Khistiand Meghal H. Varia) working with me

on the computer, the four of us placedour hands gently on the mouse, to posi-tion the cursor wherever it was sum-moned to go.

Ouijagree contained elements of “Oui”(French for “yes,” as in “yes, we agree”)and of the Ouija board’s planchette. Themouse assumed the role of the latter. Onthe abstract level, we might say that thespirits of the dead are bound by theTerms and Conditions of the contract,whereas on the more concrete level,since no one particular one of us movedthe mouse, it would be difficult to discernwhich of us, if any, were to be bound bythese unfair and outrageous Terms andConditions.

The Ouijagree performance was a very simple example of what I call Exis-tential Technology (technology of self-determination and mastery over our owndestiny). Ironically, our mastery over ourown destiny (our freedom) came fromour very lack of control over the situation(i.e. the fact that no one person exerciseddecisive voluntary control over the posi-tion of the planchette mouse).

The Ouija board is an appropriatemetaphor for my “community of cy-borgs,” because it complicates the locusof control. In the same way that a gov-ernment’s firing squad may include someunloaded guns, the Ouijagree piece re-flects a similar diffusion of responsibility.For example, a large community of on-line users could remotely operate aglobal Ouija board to write a program toconvert Proprietary Data Format (PDF)documents to plain text for accessibilityto the blind or visually impaired. Adobe(purveyors of PDF) would then have ahard time knowing whom to prosecute.

MY MANAGER: PLEASE WAITFOR MY NEXT AVAILABLEMOMENTIn a mid-1970s performance I connectedmy body to electricity to stimulate bodymovement. Much like the planchette inOuijagree, the My Manager performanceallowed me to corporatize my body. In-deed, just as a corporation is an abstractentity, my body became an abstract en-tity, writhing in movement beyond myown control.

My Manager also evolved into otherpieces that explored the freedom associ-ated with covering, restraining and di-minishing the capabilities of the humanbody, using such works as PleaseWait [8](Fig. 2) and Sight License (Color Plate ANo. 1), which prevented me from seeingor hearing anything until a person iden-

20 Mann, Existential Technology

Leonardo_36-1_001-098 1/24/03 9:24 AM Page 20

tified themselves by sliding an ID cardthrough a slot on my head.

PleaseWait bears some similarity to Ed-uardo Kac’s Telepresence Garment [9].

W EARCAMA more recent series of performances,from the mid-1980s to the present, in-volved wearing photographic apparatus tocreate an incidentalist intervention. Insuch apparatus, intentionality can be con-veniently obscured. For example, mytelematic body in Wearable Wireless Webcam(a live performance transmitting contin-uously on the Web from 1994 to 1996) al-lowed other people (not me) to initiate apicture-capture process, and in some casesremotely teleoperate my body. Whenasked by security guards or departmentstore staff if I was taking pictures, I couldrespond with uncertainty and consensustactics, e.g. I was not knowingly taking pic-tures of anyone and I would need to checkwith my managers (thousands of otherpeople I did not even know) in order todetermine whether or not pictures werebeing remotely acquired [10]. Question-ing and deconstructing rules becomes anew art form [11].

PLAYING IN THE KEY OF LOSTIn the making of the film Cyberman, a filmcrew followed me through various day-to-day life activities, e.g. my visit to CasinoNiagara on Sunday, 2 July 2000.

For shooting my documentary video(upon which the above was based) I usedmy EyeTap system—eyeglasses that causethe eye itself to function as if it were acamera. My wearable apparatus is con-trolled by a handpiece that looks (andworks) much like a musical instrument.This “keyer” [12] has various keys that canbe pressed in various combinations toform various chords. I unplugged mykeyer so that I would have no control overmy EyeTap rig, but before I unplugged it,I asked my wife to MAYBE press C, so thatI would not know whether or not my eye-glasses were remembering (or recordingor transmitting) anything. The keyer,which works like a musical instrumentthat I usually start off by playing in the keyof G (Grab), then change to the key of C(Capture), was now removed so that I hadno way of controlling the function of theapparatus or of knowing whether or notI was in the key of C.

Finally, I switched to the key of Lost: Ilocked my waist-worn computer rig shutwith a small padlock for which I did nothave a key. (I gave the key to my manager

so that I would not have it.) Thus, I couldnot access any of the controls or deter-mine whether or not the system was inCapture mode.

Now once I was MAYBE playing in thekey of C, but definitely playing in the keyof Lost, I wandered into the casino, withthe film crew following.

The film crew managed to sneak in alltheir film gear (this was not merely video,but included a large Arriflex motion pic-ture camera that shot real celluloid film).The line producer (Alexi Steele) dis-tracted the guard, while the cameraman(Rudy) pretended to be close friendswith his assistant, giving her a big hug,with the camera hidden between them,as they walked in past the guards. Thesound crew also managed to sneak in pastthe guards, and so as I walked in, the crewquickly assembled inside and followedme up the escalator. There was a tall es-calator going up a very grand entrance,and the crew knew that they could not beattacked in the confined space of the es-calator, so that even after detection, anyassailants would need to wait until thecrew got to the top.

The assailants were waiting at the top.The film crew explained that they were

making a documentary of me (that theyhad been following me around, in myday-to-day life, etc.), but the crew was

asked not to take pictures, so I continuedto wander around and make my own doc-umentary. Nobody seemed to know thatI might be playing in the key of C.

Later, I left and met up with the filmcrew who were waiting outside, havingbeen prohibited from shooting inside thecasino.

Casinos have traditionally been associ-ated with money-laundering and crime,so that shooting video within casinos raisessome interesting questions as to what isprohibited and what is allowed (e.g. thequestion as to whether photography isoften prohibited in order to hide evidenceof wrongdoing by the casino owners).

HEARTCA MHeartCam was a bra made using two sur-veillance domes as cups, with a heartmonitor in the left cup to trigger imagecapture; the apparatus took pictureswhen the heart beat faster (Fig. 3).HeartCam turned the tables on the “malegaze” by allowing the female wearer ofthe apparatus to capture images; at thesame time it used heart rate as a naturalindex to frame rate (i.e. frame rate wasproportional to the wearer’s degree ofarousal).

Because image capture was involun-tarily controlled by the wearer (heart rate

Mann, Existential Technology 21

Fig. 2. PleaseWait (1–6 June, 1998): I don’t talk to strangers. Therefore you must slide agovernment-issued photo ID card through the slot on my head before I can see or hear you(or acknowledge your existence). If you would like to show me an advertisement, press 3 andslide your credit card through the slot on my head to purchase my attention (otherwise Icannot see your billboards or other ads). (© Steve Mann)

Leonardo_36-1_001-098 1/24/03 9:24 AM Page 21

being an externality not directly underher intentioned control), the apparatusprovided an incidentalist element [13].Moreover, if an assailant objected to thecamera, or the possibility of a camera, byassailing the wearer, whether verbally orotherwise, the frame rate would increase.

Thus, a potential perpetrator who be-came upset at the wearer for photo-graphing him would cause her heart tobeat faster, which would cause her to takemore pictures of him.

Since this feedback loop was beyondher control, it could be said that the as-sailant was taking pictures of himself byagitating her.

GRIEFCASE: MY BRIEFCASECAN BE OPENED BY ANYONEOTHER THAN MEFinally, I should emphasize that not allExistential Technology need be wearable.Although wearability is closely correlatedto existentiality, there are examples, suchas handcuffs, of wearable technologiesthat are not very existential in the con-text of their ordinary usage. There arealso examples of non-wearable tech-nologies that are very empowering (inthe context of personal empowerment).One such example is a briefcase that canbe opened by anyone other than myself(Fig. 4). Even though I built it, I cannotopen it, because I have replaced thethumb-operated latches with fingerprint

scanners. A computer inside the casematches the fingerprints against a data-base, and I have simply put myself in the/etc/deny directory.

The Griefcase bears these written in-structions on its exterior surface:

This briefcase is property of EXISTechCorp. By extension, it is thus consideredto be part of EXISTech’s corporate head-

quarters. Therefore, it requires the samedegree of protection as EXISTech’s Cor-porate Headquarters, namely that it beprotected from undocumented access toits contents, or to access by strangers.

Accordingly, an audit trail log, with fin-gerprints of anyone and everyone open-ing this briefcase, whether for business,or simply for routine inspection, must bemaintained.

Routine inspection may include in-spection by officials, such as law-enforcement personnel, customs offi-cials, etc., as well as by private security of-ficers such as those stationed at theegress of establishments such as depart-ment stores, public libraries, and otherplaces where bags and personal belong-ings are checked upon exiting or enter-ing these establishments.

In order to ensure this accountability,the owner or person carrying this brief-case cannot open it. Only persons otherthan the owner of this briefcase canopen it.

Anyone opening this briefcase,whether they be law enforcement offi-cers, customs officials, military police, orprivate security forces, must therefore befingerprinted, and the fingerprints mustbe maintained in a time-stamped ac-countability archive. Additionally, thisbriefcase contains a video surveillancesystem to document any inspection of itscontents, in order to ensure that the con-tents are not compromised by strangersor corruption.

Compliance with these directives is en-forced by both policy as well as by usingthe latest in keyless lock security tech-nology. The briefcase uses keyless thumblatches activated by pressing boththumbs on the latches simultaneously.The onboard microprocessor scans thethumbprints of the person attempting toopen the briefcase. If the fingerprints are

22 Mann, Existential Technology

Fig. 3. HeartCam (2001) reverses the “male gaze” with a heart-triggered camera systemconspicuously concealed in the left bra cup together with an infrared night vision cameraand computer processor. HeartCam further includes a second high-resolution color camerain the right cup. (© Steve Mann)

Fig. 4. An official is fingerprinted at an exhibit of the Griefcase, Wednesday, 1 November2000. (© Steve Mann) A large number of government officials, including Canadian SecurityIntelligence Service (CSIS) officials, were fingerprinted with the Griefcase.

Leonardo_36-1_001-098 1/24/03 9:24 AM Page 22

those of the owner, the briefcase is notopened. If the fingerprints are those ofany person other than the owner, the fin-gerprints are transmitted by way of a builtin cellular telephone data communica-tions system, for remote archiving andcomparison with a database of knowncriminals. Assuming no criminal matchis found, the briefcase can be opened byanyone other than its owner, pendingsuccessful transmission and archiving ofthat person’s fingerprints to a logfilemirrored across EXISTech’s global net-work of servers.

As Assistant Mailroom Clerk for EXIS-Tech Corporation, my job is simply to de-liver the mail, and I, of course, cannot betrusted with access to the mail. There-fore, I cannot open the Griefcase.

This situation creates something I callSubmissivity Reciprocity. That means thatanyone wishing me to submit to a searchof the case must submit to being finger-printed.

Additionally, by handcuffing one of myhands to the case, and leaving the key inEXISTech’s level 4 laboratory (or insidethe briefcase itself), I am unable even totry to open the case, because I cannot getboth thumbs onto the scanners at thesame time. Thus, I require the help of theperson wishing the case to be opened[14].

SUMMARY: HUMANS BEINGCLERKS CAN MAKE CLERKSBE HUMANThe fundamental problem that the indi-vidual faces when interacting with theever-increasing scope of larger and largerglobal bureaucracies is that of imbalanceand asymmetry.

Figure 5 illustrates this imbalance byway of an individual interacting with aclerk who either is, or pretends to be,under the control of a manager who ei-ther is, or pretends to be, under the con-trol of a chief technology officer, whoeither is, or pretends to be, under thecontrol of a board of directors, etc. Forexample, the CLERK may be protectedby a surveillance camera or by a con-spicuously covert container for a surveil-lance camera (such as a large Plexiglashemispherical dome of wine-dark opac-ity). If the INDIVIDUAL complainsabout the surveillance or about the po-tential for surveillance (e.g. by askingabout Plexiglas hemispherical domes ofwine-dark opacity within the establish-ment), the CLERK either can claim notto know what is in the domes or can ab-solve himself or herself from responsi-bility for the situation by making

reference to the MANAGER. The CLERKcan either claim that the MANAGER in-stalled the surveillance cameras—or au-thorized or required the installation ofthe cameras—or that the MANAGER de-cides whether or not images are capturedfrom these domes. Alternatively, theCLERK can completely deny knowingwhether or not the domes actually con-tain cameras. Similarly, the MANAGER isbound by, or can pretend to be bound by,conditions from a chief executive officer(CEO). The CEO is bound by, or pre-tends to be bound by what the insurancecompany requires, or by a board of di-rectors, denoted BOARD.

A typical example of such a situation iswhen an individual attempts to negotiatewith a used-car salesman, and the used-car salesman might say something like,“I’d love to give you the car for two thou-sand dollars; let me check with my man-ager.” The used car salesman thendisappears into a back room, alone, hassome coffee and reads a newspaper for afew minutes and then comes out and says,“I’d love to give you the car for two thou-sand dollars but my manager won’t letme.” Although the salesman never talkedto a manager, the salesman has some de-gree of power over the customer by virtueof being able to credibly pretend that heis bound by a higher and unquestionableauthority. A credible, articulable, higherand unquestionable authority allows rep-resentatives of organizations to obtain ex-ternal blame and excuses for what wouldotherwise be irrational or disagreeable ac-tions.

Unfortunately, the individual persondoes not ordinarily enjoy the same lux-ury as the clerk and must therefore be-have more rationally, or risk seeming

irrational, rude or otherwise inappro-priate.

Another example is that of video sur-veillance. If we visited a friend’s housewhere video surveillance was used be-cause that person did not trust us, wewould likely be quite angry. However, weoften accept the use of video surveillancesystems by owners of large organizations,simply because it is not clear who is re-sponsible for the installation of such sys-tems. In my ShootingBack performance[15] I explored this phenomenon, by ask-ing clerks at department stores, and thelike, why they had placed me under videosurveillance. Their typical response ex-ternalized the responsibility to somehigher and unquestionable authoritysuch as management. When I attemptedto follow the chain of responsibility up-wards, management indicated the direc-tive was from head office, and head officeargued video surveillance was just policy,or for insurance purposes or the like.Thus, there was no clear accountabilityfor the situation.

If an individual carried a handheldvideo camera around, videotaping clerks,casino operators, police officers, customsofficials and the like, the individualmight be regarded as strange, rude orotherwise acting in an inappropriatemanner.

The individual could rely on religionas a manager, by, for example, wearing acamera contraption as part of a religiousorder. Just as religion allows individualsthe right to wear special headwear evenas uniformed employees (e.g. to wraptheir heads in various materials thatwould otherwise be regarded as inap-propriate), a new religion such as the“personal safety religion” could be in-

Mann, Existential Technology 23

Fig. 5. An individual vs. a clerk under the control of a manager under control of a CEOunder control of a board. . . . (© Steve Mann)

Leonardo_36-1_001-098 1/24/03 9:24 AM Page 23

vented that required its members to wearcameras.

Thus, religion could be used to play arole similar to that of the manager for theindividual, but there is the danger thatothers (including clerks) may dismiss theindividual as a religious freak. Therefore,what I invented was another way for theindividual to have excuses for, and to ex-ternalize blame for, otherwise irrationalor disagreeable actions.

An important aspect of my inventionis for the individual to be able to non-confrontationally inflict fear of account-ability, uncertainty or doubt on personsexerting physical or other coercive force,or the threat or possibility thereof, uponthe user of the invention. I did this by wayof an incidentalist imaging possibility.

Incidentalist imaging is imaging thatcan be made to seem as if it occurs merelyby chance or without intention or calcu-lation. An incidentalist imaging systemmay in fact blatantly capture images (as byan articulable requirement from a higherauthority to do so), or it may present itselfas a device that could capture images, in away that makes it difficult to discern theintentionality of the use of the invention.

Figure 6 illustrates the situation of awearable computer user who is able ei-ther to be or to pretend to be under thecontrol of a Safety Management Organi-zation (SMO).

This figure shows an embodiment ofmy WearComp invention, in which the IN-DIVIDUAL has a credible mechanism toexternalize at least a portion of his or herimage-capture actions to a Safety Man-agement Organization (SMO). The SMOprovides an articulable basis upon whichto deny free will or self-determination.The SMO creates a management system,

either real or perceived, that forces theCLERK out of the normal role, makingnecessary a true back channel (RE-VERSE PATH) from the CLERK to theMANAGER, which will often also requirea true back channel to the CEO, etc.

Ordinarily there would be no suchback channel, or the back channel wouldbe reduced, or its existence may even bedenied or obscured by the CLERK. Forexample, if an INDIVIDUAL complainsabout video surveillance systems in useby a CLERK, then the CLERK will simplyrefer the INDIVIDUAL to management,and management will likely be availableonly during certain limited hours, andonly after extensive delay. Then man-agement will likely say the directive foruse of surveillance comes from the headoffice, and refer the INDIVIDUAL to ahead office, where the INDIVIDUAL willspend several hours waiting on hold andcalling various telephone numbers, etc.The head office will then often say thatthe surveillance is used because the in-surance company requires it.

However, if the INDIVIDUAL takes outhis or her own personal handheld cam-era and photographs the CLERK, indi-cating that the SMO requires it, a veryrapid back channel (REVERSE PATH)will emerge. Quite often the MANAGERwill immediately become available, andthe INDIVIDUAL will no longer have towait in line or come back on a certain spe-cial day to talk to the manager. TheCLERK will, in fact, desperately seek amanager to avoid being photographed.The matter will therefore rapidly escalateto the highest available level of authority.

This system thus has a symmetrical ef-fect in which the individual and managereither snap out of their respective roles

or a back channel is opened, disruptingthe normally top-down nature of the flowcontrol from the management to theCLERK. Thus, the individual human be-coming a clerk forces the clerk to be-come an individual human and makeresponsible decisions outside the scopeof being just a clerk.

In addition to an SMO, the INDIVID-UAL can also choose to be bound by (orto pretend to be bound by) an SMO thatis itself bound by a higher authority suchas an insurance company. Thus, in oneembodiment, the INDIVIDUAL could,for example, take out a life-insurance pol-icy that required him to wear a personalsafety device that recorded video at alltimes.

Thus, an individual wishing to wear avideo-capture and recording systemmerely signs up with a life-insurance com-pany (e.g. EXISTech Corporation) thatrequires him to do so. A small premiumof one cent per year is paid by the indi-vidual, primarily for the reason of beingbound by the requirement to wear thedevice. The life-insurance company pro-vides the individual with a choice of twoprograms, one being one cent a yearwearing a camera, and the other beingtwo cents a year not wearing the camera.Thus, the individual wishing to wear acamera system simply selects the lowerpremium and then blames his apparentlyirrational actions (constantly wearing acamera system) on the insurance com-pany. EXISTech Corporation simply be-comes the individual’s corporationality(corporate rationality).

Thus, the life-insurance company pro-vides the individual with a means for ar-ticulably externalizing his own irrationalactions. Now the individual can say, “I’mwearing this camera because my manager(SMO) requires it, and the insurancecompany requires the SMO to requireme to wear it, etc.”

Preferably, in the experimental appa-ratus, a PROCEDURALIZER is used toallow the individual to follow, or to ap-pear to follow, a prescribed procedurewithout appearing to be thinking forhim- or herself. The lack of apparent in-dividual thought or intentionality allowsthe individual to become or seem to be-come a clerk, which forces the CLERK tobe human in being forced to think andmake decisions for himself or herself.

References and Notes

1. See <http://wearcam.org/dusting/tpw/> and theaccompanying curatorial essay at <http://existech.com/tpw/>.

2. Surprisingly, using my approach of self-demotionto confront the lowest level clerks in an establish-

24 Mann, Existential Technology

Fig. 6. Empowerment through self-demotion. (© Steve Mann) In the same way that clerksfacilitate empowerment of large organizations, I was able to facilitate personal empower-ment by being a clerk. My self-demotion provided a deliberate self-inflicted dehumanizationof the individual that forced clerks to become human. In summary, I found that humansbeing clerks can make clerks be human.

Leonardo_36-1_001-098 1/24/03 9:24 AM Page 24

ment usually brings me face-to-face with their high-est official much faster than trying to approach theofficial myself (as in Michael Moore’s Roger and Me).By demoting myself to a low-level clerk in my ownself-inflicted bureaucracy, I create a situation that theclerks cannot deal with, so they bring me their man-agers right away. I do not need to write endless unan-swered letters and wait for hours on hold. I mirrorthe organization upon itself to get them to bring metheir top official very quickly. S. Mann, “‘Reflection-ism’ and ‘Diffusionism’: New Tactics for Decon-structing the Video Surveillance Superhighway,”Leonardo 31, No. 2, 93–102 (1998); <http://wearcam.org/leonardo/index.htm>.

3. Albert Camus, a writer who worked for the Frenchresistance movement against the Germans in WorldWar II and co-edited with Jean-Paul Sartre a news-paper called Combat, also examined civilization’s fail-ure to properly address many serious moral issues.See also the many writings by Camus and others onthe “Theater of the Absurd.”

4. Walter Kaufmann, Existentialism from Dostoevsky toSartre (World Publishing Company, 1956). See also<http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/cree/kaufmann.htm>.

5. See, for example, Viktor Frankl, “From Death Campto Existentialism” (Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1959).

6. See <http://wearcam.org/seatsale/index.htm>for more details on the actual exhibits.

7. The concept of Humanistic Property is describedin Steve Mann, “Computer Architectures for Pro-tection of Personal Informatic Property,” First Mon-day 5, No. 7 (July 2000); <http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue5_7/mann/index.html>.

8. See <http://wearcam.org/pleasewait.htm>.

9. “Instead of adorning or expanding the body, how-ever, the Telepresence Garment . . . foregrounds theother meanings of the verb ‘to wear’: To damage, di-minish, erode, or consume by long or hard use; tofatigue, weary, or exhaust.” Eduardo Kac, “Dialogi-

cal Telepresence Art and Net Ecology,” in Ken Gold-berg, ed., The Robot in the Garden: Telerobotics andTelepistemology in the Age of the Internet (Cambridge,MA: MIT Press, 2000) pp. 180–196; <http://www.ekac.org/dialtelep.html>.

10. Wearable Wireless Webcam, as described in<http://wearcam.org> and <http://wearcam.org/art.htm>. Beginning in 1994 (and at that timeonly known to my close friends and relatives) the siteexploded in popularity. Eventually, on 22 February1995, this site was chosen as “Cool Site of the Day”by what was then the world’s most popular Web por-tal. At the end of the day I accidentally documenteda fire at MIT’s East Campus <http://wearcam.org/previous_experiences/eastcampusfire.html>,serendipitously creating a new kind of journalism.Part of my reason for doing this was also to raise is-sues about privacy and surveillance, which it certainlydid. See, for example, <http://wearcam.org/anders_hove_wearable_web_camera_goes_too_far.htm> (criticism of my using my invention as a “com-plete substitute for existence”).

11. Artists are beginning to ask questions about rulesand regulations, and even about crime and whatcrime is, for example, as articulated by Stephen Wil-son: “Deconstructing Crime: What’s a crime? Whodefines it? What are our prejudices about crime? Arestreet crimes worthy of more attention than othercrimes against the community such as poisoning theBay or creation of dangerous products that kill ormaim?”<http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~netart/crimezy/crimemain.html>; see also <http://www.ctheory.com/article/a067.html>.

Julia Scher also provides a critical framework inwhich to understand such concepts as what she callsINTERFACE DISEASE SQUADRONS; MAN TRAPBOOTHS; and QUARANTINE BLOCKS. See<http://www.insecuritybyjulia.com>.

My recent exhibit on mass decontamination alsolooks at similar issues. See <http://wearcam.org/tpw_decon_drill/index.htm>.

12. See <http://wearcam.org/septambic/index.html> and <http://about.eyetap.org/library/weekly/aa120400a.shtml>.

13. By incidentalism, I mean that there is no ap-pearance of deliberate action. For example, Heart-Cam, like the other WearCam inventions, creates apossibility for image capture by mere chance, seem-ingly without intention, as opposed to the situationwith a traditional camera that needs to be held up tothe eye.

14. A smaller wallet-sized version of a similar appara-tus is described at <http://wearcam.org/griefcase/idwallet.htm>.

15. See <http://wearcam.org/shootingback.html>,as well as some of the movies at <http://wearcam.org/shootingback/>.

Manuscript received 26 March 2001.

Steve Mann has lived as a cyborg for 30 years,creating live street performances. Although hiswork has been exhibited at the Museum ofModern Art in New York, Stedelijk Museumof Art in Amsterdam, Science Museum in theU.K. and various other museums around theworld, he believes that the artifacts of the mu-seums are little more than the residue left overfrom a live performance. Therefore, as a satireof the art gallery, he has constructed a wear-able art gallery in which anyone can exhibitwork. He now works as an assistant filingclerk trainee in the self-constructed gallery (asdescribed in his book Cyborg: Digital Des-tiny and Human Possibility in the Age ofthe Wearable Computer [Doubleday,2001]), written with Hal Niedzviecki.

Mann, Existential Technology 25

Leonardo_36-1_001-098 1/24/03 9:24 AM Page 25

LEONARDO/ISAST ANNOUNCES

Leonardo Music Journal Volume 12

The LMJ series is devoted to aesthetic and technical issues in contemporary music and the sonic arts. Cur-rently under the editorship of Nicolas Collins, each thematic issue features artists/writers from around theworld, representing a wide range of stylistic viewpoints. Each volume includes the latest offering from theLMJ CD series—-an exciting sampling of curious and unusual, but eminently listenable, music. Indepen-dently curated and annotated by experts and aficionados, these CDs offer a feast for the ear and mindalike. LMJ is available by subscription from the MIT Press. Visit �http://mitpress.mit.edu�.

LMJ12: PLEASURE

From its naughty lyric content to the pounding physicality of its sound, Pop music is unabashedly driven bythe pleasure principle. “Serious” music, however, is usually perceived as more refined, genteel or—-to put itanother way—-repressed. And the avant-garde has traditionally found itself in the peculiar position of ac-companying bohemian, hedonistic lifestyles with a defiantly itchy and uncomfortable music. But are plea-sure and thoughtful invention necessarily at odds? Can there be no “bump and mind”?

What of the Maryanne Amacher fan who spent 2 hours at The Kitchen, body pressed close to subwoofer?What of the delight experienced by virtuosi in particular finger-tickling passages? What of the trance-likestate induced by the Perfect Fifth of the tambura, and all its Western imitators? What of the gratifying, sternum-thudding din of Rhys Chatham’s guitar pieces or the heaving, well-oiled muscularity of GordonMonahan’s swingers?

For nigh on a half-century, journalists have tried to raise Pop out of the gutter and convince us of its intel-lectual merit, but there has been scant critical attention paid to the feel-good factor of “serious” music. Thetime has come to think of libido and Ligeti in the same breath: in LMJ12 we reflect on the role of pleasurein all genres of music.

This volume includes articles by: Ben Neill, David Byrne, Bob Ostertag, Arthur Elsenaar and Remko Scha,Reinhold Friedl, Ricardo Arias, Frieder Butzmann, Gil Weinberg, Dave Soldier, Marina Rosenfeld, RobertWilsmore, Bruce Crossman, Amnon Wolman, Yale Evelev, Robert Poss, David Rosenboom.

LMJ12 CD INCLUDED IN ISSUE

LMJ12 includes an audio CD curated by Christian Scheib and Susanna Niedermayr: From Gdansk till Dawn:Contemporary Experimental Music from Eastern Europe. The CD features works from throughout Eastern Eu-rope by: Tigrics, Olga�Jozef, Wolfram, nicron, EA, Daniel Matej, Borut Savski, Molr Drammaz, The Ab-stract Monarchy Trio, Arszyn, Vladimir Djambazov, Jeanne Frémaux, Arkona, Vapori del Cuore and MartinBurlas.

Leonardo Music Journal Vol. 12, including CD, is available from the MIT Press for $30. To order, sendemail to <journals-orders@mit.edu> or visit <http://mitpress.mit.edu>.

Leonardo_36-1_001-098 1/24/03 9:24 AM Page 26