Kevin Kelly, founder and editor of Wired Magazine stated, “technology is the 7th kingdom of life,” because “the major trends in technology evolution are the same as in biological evolution--the same drives that we see, towards ubiquity, towards diversity, towards socialization, towards complexity.” But if this is true, why is it that we can’t accept imperfection in technology? The evolution of technology has typically focused on the usability, capability, and the convenience of tools. One dead pixel will send a TV back to the factory. One small error on a computer will make its owner call the designer “stupid.”

Let’s think about people for a moment. In life, we come across many people but not one that is exactly like another. People have different strengths, weaknesses, personalities, obsessions, habits, and behaviors. Because it is not easy to find people who are like ourselves, when we find people that share our interests, it makes it that much more exciting. Because we are not perfect beings by ourselves, we admire and seek people who can fill our imperfection in many ways.

The biggest imperfection in technology as a form of life that I can identify is that it does not have, nor will it ever have ‘consciousness.’ We can impose consciousness on technology by personifying objects. We look at a tree and see it as an animate being because it resembles the movement of an animal or a person. We look at a pair of birds and see them as a married couple because they are flying side by side. Similarly, we think that the web camera on a computer is “watching” us when the green or red light next to the camera turns on. Clues, cues, and feedbacks let us understand what is going on with an object, and this potentially leads us to personify inanimate objects.

Another thing that can help us see technology as a living creature is to use the idea of “work” and “play.” Take hotel security guards for instance. They have a clear “work” manner that they show when working, but what are they like when they are off-duty? Do they like knitting? Do they like going to rock concerts? Who knows. Similar to the ideas of “work” and “play,” technology has two states of usage; “in-use” and “idle.” The “in-use” state shall be a productive one, where it is interacting with its owner in some way. On the other hand, the “idle” state can be used to do a variety of things. It can be used to “recharge” or do “house-keeping” work. A printer self-cleaning the toner or a computer defragmenting when not in use is a good example though its down-time is still used as a utilitarian purpose. Other than doing more work, in its idle state, a piece of electronics can interact with other forms of life, enjoy music, have a hobby, or communicate with other pieces of technology. This may seem unproductive or pointless but it definitely helps us see them as a form of life.


Only when we are able to enjoy the richness of material culture does a functional and expressive piece of technology come alive. However, sub-fields of experience design, haptic feedback, ergonomics, and usability to name a few, all look at how we interact with objects when we are giving them full attention. I’m interested in the fact that we could still be interacting with technology in our absence--”interaction” in the sense that technology can do something that may impact us in a meaningful way.

- Can there be a more interesting or meaningful way to bond with technology than with the ways that are being done now?
- Can we do it without making a machine easier to use, powerful, or attractive?
- Can imperfection add a touch of humaneness to technology?
- Can imperfections in technology be seen as unique affordances, giving more meaning to different objects in different situations, to different people?
- Would this be an alternative to a one-size-fits-all gadget?
- Would we be able to accept the unique characteristics and limitations of electronic objects?
- Would this be a desirable alternative to exactly copying people and enhancing them if they don’t have the abilities to do so?
- Would we then be able to see technology as a new kingdom of life?
- Furthermore, would we be able to connect with machines without facing the ethical issues we face today?

I plan on presenting an array of familiar everyday objects that have a clear distinction between the “in-use” state and “rest” state. The “rest” state would be used to reveal their “personal lives” under different themes; one that is obsessive, one that enjoys having a pet, and one that is still working even during its free time. I want the “personal life” part to take advantage of the “affordance,” “imperfection,” or “personality” of each object for the most part. For example, my “paper cutter” is a vacuum cleaner by day. It has the necessary parts to pull a piece of paper and the ability to clean the mess up afterwards. By seeing the functional affordance of an object contrasted with other possibilities, the viewer will think about familiar objects and our interaction with them in different ways. Perhaps knowing that objects have a life of their own, we’ll be able accept them as a form of life and appreciate their imperfections.