The Quantified Self movement identifies digital devices as a tool for quantifying oneself, and consequentially the idea of self-tracking as a solution for objective self-knowledge. The term was coined in 2007 by Gary Wolf and Kevin Kelly of Wired magazine. The motto: ‘self-knowledge through numbers’. Gary Wolf and Kevin Kelly at Quantified Self 2011 © Marc Smith→. This phenomenon has changed not only the perception of the body, but also its modeling. The belief in the measurability and quantifiability of life dominates the digital age as a whole. The body is equipped with digital sensors that reveal all its data and at the same time it is transformed into a screen for surveillance and control. The data collected is networked and exchanged.
From smart wearables to embedded microchips, data dissolves the body in data and makes it conform to data. The two Dutch artists Elmgreen & Dragset, whose inanimate sculptures in the current exhibition at Fondazione Prada represent the perception of a body that now “has the status of a product whose data is collected and sold by Big Tech,” are important in this regard. At a time when the commodification of personal data by technology companies is in the public domain – albeit unnecessarily so – and the influence of these organizations in every aspect of our lives is increasingly pervasive, it’s a little scary to think about the future role of our bodies”, say the two artists.
In 2015, TENT Rotterdam hosted “Spending quality time with my quantified self”, an exhibition that addressed the dual nature of the technological contribution to our increasingly connected bodies: “while there are more possibilities to quantify and enhance our performance as human beings, the techno-individualist acceleration brings with that a baggage of stress and alienation that shouldn’t be underestimated.” Anna Zett, Text-To-Speech, 2015 →. For digital anthropology, data are tools for a cultural technique of identity construction, inside and outside the web, in which the sharing of data creates communities, digital subcultures, and attracts different audiences with the promise of improvement, achieving a goal, or solving a problem.
While it’s undeniable that the propensity to monitor daily activities and constantly push for improvement is very useful in specific cases such as sport and health, one has to wonder if this process may confuse those who are unclear about why they decided to measure a specific activity. Recognising self-tracking data as a sufficient resource to get to know oneself, could define our personalities within limits marked by the goal that the device we use invites us to achieve.
But the path to improvement and liberation doesn’t pass exclusively through data and statistics. Our bodies, like our minds, are in a state of constant change and we need to constantly reshape the boundaries that define us to know ourselves. Abandoning our predefined mental patterns is necessary to let go and, through deepening awareness, achieve an unconditional and objective overall vision. This means that the practices of self-measurement that define us objectively must leave room for the irrational, non-quantifiable part, relating to aesthetic sensations, that belongs to each of us. Awareness of our body isn’t separate from that of our mind.