```tracker searchType: frontmatter searchTarget: weight folder: daily notes line: title: Weight Tracker yAxisLabel: weight lineColor: blue ``` # Rewriting [[The Design]] Paper ### Flowstate Text Restructuring [[the design]] paper. First we start with bullet points for [[each section]], then we go down to the paragraph level. [[Beauty in Use]]: Agentive Aesthetics and Design Main claim: we argue that existing accounts of [[the aesthetics of design]], [[functional beauty]], and forsey’s kant-inspired [[dependent beauty]] account neglect an important aspect of [[design appreciation]]: [[the experience]] of interacting/[[using designed objects]]. Our argument will proceed as follows. First we will show that despite an object’s *function* playing a crucial role in [[the appreciation]] of that object, [[the Functional Beauty]] account put forward by Parsons and Carlson neglects a crucial aspect: what it is like to use that object. We provide various examples to show that our appreciation of objects, unlike (most) traditional types of artworks is not solely based on our [[perceptual experience]]. In particular, we argue that a reliance on perception neglects what we call *[[invisible design]]*. We then move onto another view on [[the aesthetics of design]]: Forsey’s Kantian inspired account, which we will refer to as dependent beauty. On the face of things Forsey’s view might seem much more amenable to the idea that our experiences of interacting with an object play a role in aesthetically appreciating that object. Indeed, Forsey’s more encompassing account which includes, but is not limited to the look of objects , does make room for use. However, it does not make room for the experience of use: on Forsey’s account use is one way in which an object might be assessed as to how *well* it works. However, we argue, whether or not something works well is not the end of the story when it comes to an aesthetics of design. If it were then, arguably, objects which are easy to interact with would be judged aesthetically pleasing and this is patently incorrect: it is rare, for example, that we would aesthetically appreciate the pressing of a lift button, or the turning of a doorhandle for example. Conversely, it is quite natural to say that some objects are aesthetically pleasing to use. An iPod for example… In Section 3, we put forward an aesthetics of use. If the aesthetics of use cannot be reduced to simple ease of use, or the perceptual experiences use elicits, what is it? Aesthetic appreciation of art has many facets, a painting can be beautiful but it might also be forboding, moving, provactive etc., similarly, we argue, there are likely multiple aspects to the aesthetics of use. We will limit ourselves to outlining a few. We start by examining Nguyen’s suggestions, later elabourated upon by Peacocke, regarding harmony. In Nguyen’s recent work on games he identifies… While these are interesting and variants of them might well show up in the aesthetics of use