```tracker searchType: frontmatter searchTarget: weight folder: daily notes line: title: Weight Tracker yAxisLabel: weight lineColor: blue ``` Binface! It's Count Binface. He was sent from the stars above to make fun of England First. He was sent from the stars above and will always put the UK first If croissants are your thing, Then get in the bin. Binface will save us all. BINFACE! # New Plan for [[Beauty in Use]] ## 1. [[The Aesthetics]] of [[Invisible Design]] - Usual Stuff - Mention [[functional beauty]] does not do what we want it to ## 2. Could it be touch? - [[Functional Beauty]] won't work even in its tactile guise [[Feeling Fit for Function-– Haptic Touch and Aesthetic Experience]] - why wouldn't this work? ## 3. Could it be Proprioception? - Mention [[Proprioception as an Aesthetic Sense]] - Why would this not be the whole story? ## 4. Aesthetically Pleasing Actions should introduce the topic of [[the aesthetics of design]]. - ## [[Beauty in Use]] ### Introduction Good design seems like something that we can aesthetically appreciate. For example we appreciate ‘design classics’ like the ‘contour’ coke bottle, and the Fender Stratocaster. There are also commonly agreed upon examples of bad design. For example, the logo of the London 2012 Olympics. Here, we describe a hitherto under-explored aspect of [[design appreciation]], *[[invisible design]]*, meaning, roughly, our [[aesthetic appreciation]] of an object that we are in [[the process]] of using. After arguing that Nguyen's account of aesthetically pleasing *actions* is a good place to start, we consider three possible ways in which this account could be extended to account for our appreciation of [[invisible design]], before putting forward our own account which we call *[[beauty in use]]*. ### 1. The Aesthetics of Invisible Design In cases such as the Coke bottle and the Olympic logo aesthetic appreciation depends on visual experience. It is the *look* of the coke bottle or Olympic logo which is the focus of aesthetic appreciation. Vision also occupies an important place in existing accounts of design appreciation. In this section we will argue that accounts solely based on vision, or even perception more generally, are not the end of the story when it comes to appreciation of design: we should also consider what it is like to *use* an object. Using an object is of course closely related to the function of the object, and function does play a role in existing accounts of design appreciation. For example, on Carson and Parson's notion of *functional beauty* our understanding an object's function can influence our aesthetic appreciation of it. An object's beauty is not solely based on its sensory or formal properties, but also on knowledge of how well it fulfils its intended function. However, function plays a supporting role to perception rather than occupying centre stage: >**“knowledge of [...] function can play a role in our perception of and hence our aesthetic appreciation of that object”** > - ***Say something about Jane Forsey*** It is worth mentioning at this point that although the above views focus on vision, there is no reason to think that non-visual perception can't play a role. Indeed, technology reviewers will talk about how mobile phones feel in the hand, as well as their 'haptics' (the vibrations the phone makes as you operate it); when designing the cases for bluetooth earbuds, manufacturers might take into account how satisfying the click is when the case is closed. - Conversely, an example of touch playing a role in aesthetic displeasure can be seen in Seinfeid - Despite their focus on vision, there is no reason in principle that functional beauty and Forsey's approach cannot be modified so that knowledge of an object's function can feed into how it sounds or how it looks (and perhaps even how it smells and how it tastes). Despite the merits of both these accounts, we think that they leave another asepct of design appreciation untouched. We can begin to see this by noting that not all talk of good and bad design is based around the visual appearance of objects. Norman (1988), for example, describes good design as *invisible*: >Good design is actually a lot harder to notice than poor design, in part because good designs fit our needs so well that the design is invisible, serving us without drawing attention to itself. Bad design, on the other hand, screams out its inadequacies, making itself very noticeable. It is easy to think of examples of noticeably bad design: capsule coffee machines which make it difficult to remove used capsules, mobile phones made from slippery materials are easy to fumble or drop. Despite being harder to notice, it is still possible to find examples of invisible good design. Reviews of consumer electronics might refer to a computer operating system as well-designed if performing tasks within it is easy, car reviews might talk about a car being *fun* *to* drive, and a chef might prize a particular knife for being so satisfying to cut with. There are also cases in which how visually pleasing something looks comes apart from how pleasing it is to use. Apple's *butterfly keyboard* is a good example of this. In March 2015 Apple released an iteration of its very successful *MacBook* laptop line. In the press release apple, as they are want to do, made a fuss about how these new products looked, and in particular how thin the keyboard, and the computer itself were: >Apple® today unveiled the all-new MacBook®, a new line of notebooks reinvented in every way to deliver the thinnest and lightest Macs ever. Every component of the new MacBook has been meticulously redesigned to create a Mac® that weighs just two pounds and is 13.1 mm thin. The new MacBook features a stunning 12-inch Retina® display that is the thinnest ever on a Mac, an Apple-designed full-size keyboard which is dramatically thinner and highly responsive, ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01hp45k9fvfh474y7aee0qv61c)) > >Philip Schiller, Apple’s senior vice president of Worldwide Marketing. “Every component of the MacBook reveals a new innovation. From its fanless design, ultra-thin Retina display and full-size keyboard that’s 34 percent thinner, ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01hp45kw96pw26g6d4b11fz81n)) While the butterfly keyboard did make the laptop thinner, its shallowness meant it faced criticism regarding usability and the typing experience. Complaints included "like typing on a desk that was kind of clicky" and "one of the worst I've had the misfortune to type on." ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01hp45n2d11kbkvmhy9pmtm4bk)) - Examples such as these present a problem for perception-centric accounts of design aesthetics. How can we appreciate good design if it is invisible? In the following section we will suggest that Nguyen's ### 2. Design in Use Let's begin with the following quote from Steve Jobs: > “Most people make the mistake of thinking design is what it looks like. People think it’s this veneer — that the designers are handed this box and told, ‘Make it look good!’ That’s not what we think design is. It’s not just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how it works.” — Steve Jobs A plausible way of understanding what Jobs was referring to with 'how it works' is 'what it is like to use' (footnote on the alternative reading). This gives us the following way of understanding of what the invisible aspects of good design are. Specifically, a well-designed object should be aesthetically pleasing *to use*. This would seem a good candidate as to what invisible design is: a computer operating system might look opaque and confusing, but upon using it, you realise how intuitive and efficient the interface is; a laptop might look elegant, but typing on its keyboard might be anything but. (The following might also be better as a footnote) Note that what follows only applies to a particular category of artifacts, which Lowe (REF) calls *utensils*. Utensils are artifacts which require continuous user interaction to function, such as paintbrushes, hammers, mobile phones, and combs. For all of these objects, once the user stops interacting with them, they cease to perform their function. Utensils can be contrasted with what Lowe calls *machines*, which *do* continue to function: once you wind a clock it will continue to keep time when you put it down, once you have pressed 'on' an electric fan will continue to spin. Going forward, our focus will be on utensils. ### 3. Aesthetically Pleasing Actions The rest of this paper will try to pinpoint exactly how we should understand the idea that an object is aesthetically pleasing to use. A promising place to start is with Nguyen's idea of aesthetically pleasing *actions*: >"When I swerve around an unexpected obstacle in the road, I might delight in the elegance and beautiful, swift precision of my response. When I finally figure out the solution to a philosophical puzzle that has been plaguing me, I can do so through clumsy, ugly, brute-force reasoning, or I might alight directly on the solution with a wonderfully precise turn of mind." (from The Arts of Action 2020) Here we find the idea that, like objects, our own actions can be aesthetically appreciated. This seems like a good starting point for how to understand the aesthetics of invisible design. In and of itself, however, it cannot be the whole story: Nguyen's focus is one aesthetically pleasing *actions*, if we are to characterise how a well designed object can be pleasing to use, we need to extend his account so as to accommodate aesthetically pleasing *inter*actions. In the following section we will outline three ways in which aesthetically pleasing interactions can be fleshed out, all of which have their problems. In Section 5 we will put forward our preferred account. ### 4. Aesthetically Pleasing Interactions - The first - The first option would be to import existing theories of aesthetic appreciation to experiences, involving realism or subjectivism. - Realism views aesthetic properties as discoverable aspects of objects, while subjectivism sees them as subjective responses. - Applying these theories to actions and design directly is not straightforward. - It seems unusual to attribute aesthetic properties to actions in the same way as objects. - Moreover, this option alone might be thought inadequate in fully fleshing out the beauty in use idea. - If all we are focusing on is the actions that we are performing, this seems to leave out thee beautifully designed object itself. - This would mean that objects would be kept at one remove with this sort of approach. - The second option is to link ease of use with aesthetic appreciation. That is, objects which are easy to use –elicit easy to perform actions– are experienced as beautiful, or as having aesthetic value. - Conversely, difficult-to-use utensils would lack aesthetic value, on account of their eliciting difficult-to-perform actions. - However, this sort of approach would seem to be extremely susceptible to counterexamples. We perform plenty of actions with objects easily, pressing the button to call a lift, turning a handle to open a door, without aesthetically appreciating them as we do so. - Thirdly, we might wonder whether Saito's account of the aesthetic appreciation of everyday activities, might be the best way to characterise Beauty in Use. - A bit more here. - However, if we look at what Saito says about the aesthetics of the everyday, we find that there is an explicit focus on perceptual appreciation of the objects that are being interacted with. - "Laundry is sensually pleasing, with its snowy, sweet-smelling suds, warm water, and lovely look and feel of fabric folded or ironed, smooth and gleaming.” - “The transformation of wrinkled, shapeless cloth into the smooth and gleaming folds of a familiar garment pleases the eye. The good scent of ironing is the most comfortable smell in the world.” - “The fingertips enjoy the changes in the fabrics from cold to warm, wet to dry, and rough to silky.”" - Despite examining three options, none definitively address beauty in use, suggesting further exploration is needed for a suitable account. ### 5. The Experience of Virtuosity - Here we present out positive theory. It is inspired by Dreyfus and Heidegger's accounts of skill acquisition and mastery. - Dreyfus, drawing on Heidegger, discusses skilful coping as seamless, intuitive activity in response to a situation's affordances. - Expertise in skilful coping is marked by intuitive responses without reliance on explicit rules. - For example, a novice learning to use a hammer, initially dependent on explicit rules for effective use. - These rules, such as how to grip and angle the hammer, are strictly followed by the novice, but as the novice improves, reliance on these explicit rules falls away, **leading to a more seamless engagement with the task.** - **This transition from rule-based to intuitive engagement exemplifies the proposed concept of "beauty in use."** - INTUITIONS: - There is an experiential difference between being a novice and being an virtuoso - The experience of being a virtuoso is aesthetically pleasing. - "Beauty in use" on this account objects which elicit the experience of virtuosity are experienced as beautiful. - There are two ways in which this understanding of beauty in use can be applied - The first we might call the*facilitation of rapid mastery*. - Although it might have taken someone a couple of hours to get used to the click wheel on their new iPad it would not be long before they could expertly get the curser to land on the track that they wanted. What's more they would *experience* themselves as acting expertly. - Other examples - Examples of objects that embody "beauty in use" include the iPod click wheel, sharp kitchen knives, and the Fender Stratocaster. - These objects make users proficient quickly. - ***This sort of aesthetic appeal might be roughly compared to popular, yet sophisticated, art works. The Sopranos for instance was engaging enough to find a (relatively) large audience, yet the themes of the show were sophisticated etc.*** - The second way in which an object might beautiful in use, might be called *the potential for high virtuosity*. Certain objects are not easy to master but can elicit, and elicit experiences *of*, extremely high mastery. - *Consider Stradivarius violins, crafted in the late 17th and early 18th centuries by Antonio Stradivari. They are famed for their unparalleled sound quality and craftsmanship. Musicians and experts often regard them as the pinnacle of violin craftsmanship. The potential for high mastery on a Stradivarius lies in its ability to produce a wide array of tones, from the softest whispers to the most robust fortissimos, allowing for an exceptional range of musical expression.* - But only the very best violinist will be able to take advantages of the subtleties that the instrument offers. - (Another example of this might be highly regarded samurai swords that often feature in martial arts films). - ***This sort of aesthetic appeal is comparable to appreciation of opera: difficult to get into, but, apparently, a high reward*** ### 6. Is Beauty in Use *Aesthetic*? - It might be objected here that I have told you something about the pleasure we get from well-designed objects, but that I haven't shown you why this is aesthetic pleasure. - This can be seen as analogous to the sort of challenge that Parson's and Carlson think might be levelled at their account of Functional Beauty: - Looking 'fit for function' gives an object an attractive appearance, but this might simply be that "the ultimate source of all our pleasure in things that look fit is their utility in advancing human interests, rather than their appearance per se." - Analogously, we might say that the pleasure we take in our feeling of virtuosity derives from our knowledge that our virtuosity allows for the advancement of our/humanity's interests. - I think, however, that C and P's response to this objection can be adapted to defend BinU as well. - Their response draws on the following passage from Adam Smith: >The difference in precision between a thirty-dollar quartz watch and a thousand-dollar Swiss watch is to be measured in seconds per year or less, and as such confers no practical advantage whatsoever. Yet far greater pleasure is taken in the more finely wrought watch.¹⁹ ‘What pleases these lovers of toys,’ Smith writes, ‘is not so much the utility, as the aptness of the machines which are fitted to promote it.’⁰ From Functional Beauty, page 121ish - They use this passage to push the idea that practical utility and our appreciation of object can come apart: we still would value the fancy Swiss watch to the Quartz despite their being no difference in terms of practical utility - Can this response be adapted to defend Virtuosity? We think that it can. - That is, we think that there are objects which we still take pleasure in using, and would choose them over objects which are better at serving our ends: - Fountain pen over gel pen - Chopsticks over fork - compass and map over GPS - In all of these cases, people might well choose the former option over the other. ### 7. Back to Vision - The approach we have sketched here might also provide an alternative approach to the visual appreciation of design. - Rather than something looking 'fit for function' we might perceive objects as offering *affordances* that are informed by our sense of mastery... # SCRAP - core idea of "beauty in use" encompasses two main aspects: the facilitation of rapid mastery and the potential for high virtuosity in use. - Objects that are challenging yet enable high levels of skill exemplify another dimension of "beauty in use." - Such objects, including highly regarded swords in Kung Fu movies, demand and reward mastery, offering a deep aesthetic appreciation. - This concept parallels with art appreciation, where accessible and complex art forms offer different but rewarding aesthetic experiences. - - The analogy extends to comparing easily accessible designs and complex art forms, like opera, highlighting diverse paths to aesthetic appreciation without taking a stance on the value of different art forms. # Oh god what am I going to do today? - I need to make prgress on the aesthetics of artifacts project. - Look at what I have so far and bullet point out the rest of the plan - take it from there ### Rejected lyrics for Bryan's birthday song bryan! Oh bryan! He's irish! I've sometimes slept at his house I LIKE HIM I LIKE HIM BRYAN I LIKE BRYAN HE IS OK OK HE IS AN OK Person I suppose. is he the best of us? who is better than bryan? ricardo? Morally, I don't think so, I would prefer bryan to be my judge rather than ricardo if i was on trial for murder. That is not to say I think ricardo is particularly immoral, only that bryan is a bit more moral. But not by a huge amount, he's just a bit better than some people, like ricardo,