```tracker searchType: frontmatter searchTarget: weight folder: daily notes line: title: Weight Tracker yAxisLabel: weight lineColor: blue ``` - Spoke to Enrico yesterday. things I need to think about - I need to rearrange the names on the goddam poster for [[the Philosophy]] of Architecture Conference - random thing to tell Enrico about - Anthropic has released claude system prompts https://docs.anthropic.com/en/release-notes/system-prompts#july-12th-2024 - Are these blueprints for the chatbot? Seeds? Scores? - Working on [[the Beauty]] in Use paper - Introduction - We can aesthetically appreciate good design (give details) - We might wonder whether there is something distinct about [[the aesthetics of design]]. That is, do we admire design classics X, X, X in the same way we might appreciate works of art? - This doesn't seem right. Why not? Imagine comparing the admiration of a Stratocaster to the admiration of a sculpture. One thing that these two type of experience do have in common is they both involve the formal properties of [[the object]], colours, shapes, patterns etc. - However, there also seems something significantly different in how we would appreciate them. Other factors involved in appreciating a sculpture include: it's representational content, the sculptor's intentions, etc. but these sorts of thing are not relevant when we aesthetically assess the Stratocaster. - We do not think of the guitar as representing something, and the maker of the guitar had the intention 'to make a guitar'. - What *does* seem more relevant in this case is that we are looking at a guitar: an instance of a type of object, which has a function/functions. - In the [[first half]] of this paper we will look at two accounts of [[the aesthetics of design]] which place function centre stage, and will suggest that as they stand something is [[left out]]: an aesthetics of design should make room [[not just]] for function but use, and especially experiences of use. - We will argue that experiences of interaction –what it is like to use– [[designed objects]] also play a significant role in [[the appreciation]] of these objects. - In the [[second half]] of the paper, we examine ways in which one might flesh out [[the idea]] of aesthetically appreciable interactive experiences. - we do this by drawing on two other things in which aesthetic agency (experiences of doing) to arrive at what we call XXXXX - How would sections 2 and 3 be rewritten with this in mind? - How is [[invisible design]] damaging to [[the idea]] of [[functional beauty]]? - so we use invisible design to suggest it can't just be a matter of perceiving objects as looking fit for function. 1. An object might look fit for function, but turn out not to be. Butterfly keyboard. 2. It doesn't take into account what we might call experiential artifacts, objects we use by perceiving. - Then we move onto Section 3. - Introduce Forsey's account - It can deal with the problems that fucntional beauty cannot. 1. We put the keyboard to the test by using it, the good invisible design is detected in the using. 2. We can appreciate graphic design, typography etc. by using it. In the same way we put an object to the test by using it, we put typography to the test by reading it. - This however, still seems to leave something out. We can see this by realising that although Forsey talks about use, in a way it is still simply a stepping stone to get to the function and how and how well the object realises this function. Use the viola player as a way of showing that there still seems to be sometihng missing in this account, it misses out the experience of use. - What about Part 2 - Start with a question: what do we mean when we say that an interaction is aesthetically pleasing? - This sort of question comparable to questions like 'what makes this object aesthetically pleasing'? - Compare to this: You ask me why a painting, or a piece of music is beautiful. Typically, I would be able to give you some sort of an answer. We don't have to reach agreement, just have an intelligent conversation. - what do I mean by fleshing out the idea of aesthetics of use. I mean that I want to say something about what does and does not make an action beautiful. - I want to do this by thinking about difficulty level. - How can we understand interactions as being aesthetically appreciable? By looking at work on the aesthetics of action: Nguyen and Montero. - suggest that a significant aspect of design appreciation