Subversive e-textile – menu!

Somehow, i am getting pretty hungry reading all the recipe posts. So I present a menu which is not easily digestable. It is about human responsability, paradoxes of necessary order implying unavoidable disabuse of power. (By the way, I belong to a singular human species – the Dutch – which is convinced that corruption doesn’t exist – never existed – in our country: Holland.)

Of course “subversivity” is a Champagne called “Mer à boire”, too much to be analysed, very contingent, depending on context and moment, subjective … (not very scientific).

The subversive menu of doubts:

e-textile = this could be, something like, a textile, design, fashion and … interactivity, electronics, computer, being connected.

=>Can a textile (as a textile) be subversive … it seems so, although I doubt the subversivity of the themes i encounter on this page:
apparently subversivity for the authors of this page is related to imagery of “sex”, (?), “death” (??), and “being female” (???).

Subversive fashion:
Fashion (or textiles) exploiting signs, symbols, language, in the context of “expectations of what fashion is”, has clearly many ways of being subversive. Fashion can very well become, sometimes is “critical”. Even the catwalk is criticized in my incredibly important school!  The subversivity within fashion is much more subtil, complicated and rich than the subversive textile page mentioned above. But … given the amount of revenue, profits of this branch…

Critical design:
=>Is critical design subversive? Objects, architecture, table design – subversive … ?
Speculative design, claiming to charge your smartphone with the help of a simple plant in the garden, a moss table, or a dress ?

=>Can technology be in itself subversive?
(Could an energy harvesting chip, the marvellous LTC3109 be or become subversive?)

Some posters of made by Deanna Hearst used during a meeting around IOT, “What if objects can dream?”, 8 april this spring in Rotterdam:
Critical Engineering

What seems to emerge is that the engineer, designer could either “just” produce, or produce while trying to think about consequences. The human behind the design can be subversive, related to technology optimism. Can we knit then this designer?

=>Is producing sci-fi doom scenario’s subversive?
=>can “we” really think about consequences of technology? If we cannot, is it justifiable that, instead, we play around, do some fun things, display our ingenuity, just create some esthetics?

Should we live inside the protecting square, hard walls of Softopia (so nicely illustrated in the image of the theme page or venture into a corroding, corrupting world of unkonwns and insufficient data? Do we have any choice :-)

At the language side:
Subversive, from subvert.
French: Subvertir, renverser
German: Untergraben, kippen
Spanish: desestabilizador, que desestabiliza, en especial que compromete o perturba un orden constituido.

A subversive person seems to be: troublemaker, dissident, agitator, revolutionary, renegade, rebel (according to Google Translate)

So “the subversive” is distabalizing political order? But what is more distabalizing than corruption which seems to be all pervading in this highly valued political order?

Back to the innocent energy harvesting chip. So yes! This chip can be subversive, because it can be distablizing for the current order of energy monopolies. Are we not addicted to charging smartphones and laptops? For every addictions there is a maffia. The most effective maffia is invisible and no doubt earning more than the drugs maffia and the fashion maffia together.
Energy harvesting could make you independent of the energy networks.

Leave a Reply