# To Do > [!multi-column] > > > [!bug] Overdue > > ```tasks not done (due before today) hide task count hide due date hide edit button short mode > > >[!success] Today > >```tasks not done (due on today) hide task count hide due date hide edit button short mode > # Notes > [!multi-column] > > > [!summary]- Created Today > > ```dataview > > LIST WITHOUT ID file.link > > FROM "" > > WHERE file.cday = this.file.day AND file.name != this.file.name > > SORT file.ctime ASC > > ``` > > > [!example]- Modified Today > > ```dataview > > LIST WITHOUT ID file.link > > FROM "" > > WHERE file.mday = this.file.day AND file.name != this.file.name AND file.cday != this.file.day > > SORT file.mtime ASC > > ``` ## Quick Links ```dataview LIST WITHOUT ID file.link FROM #quicklink SORT file.cday DESC ``` # [[Weight Tracker]] # [[Scratch Pad]] [[presentation for Progress meeting]] ## Paper Overviews 1. "[[Beauty in Use]]": Explores the [[aesthetic experience]] of using well-[[designed objects]], introducing [[the concept]] of "agentive effortlessness." 2. "Growing the Image": Examines generative AI as a new form of artistic medium, comparing it to gardening and [[natura naturans]]. 3. "What's so Special about VR?": Argues that [[virtual reality]]'s unique capability is altering [[structural features]] of perception, distinguishing it from other [[artistic media]]. 4. Typeface Aesthetics: Investigates the tension between beauty and functional invisibility in typographic design, exploring how typefaces shape reading experiences. ## "[[Beauty in Use]]" Paper ### WP1: The Notion - Contributes to WP1's goal of articulating the notion of [[experiential artifacts]] by introducing [[the concept]] of "agentive effortlessness" in [[design interactions]]. This directly addresses WP1's objective to explain how technique can generate experience. - Supports WP1's aim to understand the structure-function relationship in experiential artifacts by analyzing how the structure of designed objects influences the user's experience of effortlessness. - Addresses WP1's focus on the experiential aspects of everyday objects by examining how functional beauty emerges through interaction with designed items. ### WP2: The Taxonomy - Contributes to WP2's objective of developing a taxonomy of experiential artifacts by providing a framework for classifying design objects based on the experiences they elicit. This aligns with WP2's goal of combining distinctions in the domain of artifacts with distinctions between kinds of experience. - Offers a classification axis based on user skill level (expert-oriented vs. novice-oriented agentive effortlessness), directly supporting WP2's aim to classify experiential artifacts based on the types of experiences they generate. - Proposes a taxonomy dimension based on the visibility of aesthetic qualities (visible vs. invisible design), contributing to WP2's goal of developing a comprehensive classification system. ### WP4: Beyond Art - Extends the concept of experiential artifacts to everyday designed objects, aligning with WP4's objective to explore experiential artifacts beyond traditional art contexts. - Examines how functional objects can generate aesthetic experiences, supporting WP4's aim to investigate how non-art artifacts function as generators of experience. - Analyzes user interaction with designed objects, contributing to WP4's goal of understanding how technological advancements create new types of experiential artifacts. ## "Growing the Image" Paper ### WP1: The Notion - Expands WP1's conceptualization of experiential artifacts by examining generative AI as a new form of artifact that generates experiences. This directly addresses WP1's goal to understand how technique can generate experience in the context of emerging technologies. - Introduces the concept of machina naturans, contributing to WP1's objective of refining the notion of experiential artifacts by drawing parallels between AI-generated art and natural generative processes. - Analyzes the structure-function relationship in AI tools, supporting WP1's aim to explain how artifacts perform their function of generating experiences in virtue of their structure. ### WP2: The Taxonomy - Proposes several classification axes for WP2's taxonomy, including: - Degree of user control (high-control, low-control, collaborative-control artifacts) - Outcome predictability (predictable, unpredictable, semi-predictable artifacts) - Iterative potential (single-iteration, multi-iteration, open-ended artifacts) These classifications directly contribute to WP2's goal of developing a comprehensive taxonomy of experiential artifacts. - Suggests categorization based on user skill requirements and artifact autonomy, aligning with WP2's objective to classify artifacts based on their experiential function and structural properties. ### WP4: Beyond Art - Examines AI-assisted creation as a new form of experiential artifact, directly supporting WP4's aim to explore experiential artifacts beyond traditional art contexts. - Analyzes user interaction with AI tools, contributing to WP4's objective of understanding how new technologies create novel forms of experiential artifacts. - Compares AI-assisted creation to gardening, extending WP4's investigation of how technological advancements expand the possibilities for creating experiential artifacts. ## "What's so Special about VR?" Paper ### WP1: The Notion - Expands WP1's understanding of how artifacts generate experiences by identifying VR's unique ability to alter structural features of perception. This directly addresses WP1's goal to explain how technique can generate experience. - Analyzes how VR's structure (proximity to sensory organs, real-time tracking) enables it to perform its function of generating altered perceptual experiences, contributing to WP1's focus on the structure-function relationship in experiential artifacts. - Explores how VR can manipulate fundamental aspects of perception, supporting WP1's objective to refine the notion of experiential artifacts by considering their impact on perceptual experience. ### WP2: The Taxonomy - Proposes several classification dimensions for WP2's taxonomy, including: - Perceptual structure manipulation (structure-preserving, structure-altering, hybrid artifacts) - Sensory modality engagement (unimodal, multimodal, cross-modal artifacts) - Degree of immersion and spatial manipulation - Temporal manipulation and level of interactivity These classifications directly contribute to WP2's goal of developing a comprehensive taxonomy of experiential artifacts. - Offers a framework for categorizing VR experiences based on their perceptual effects, aligning with WP2's objective to classify artifacts based on the types of experiences they generate. ### WP4: Beyond Art - Examines VR as a new form of experiential artifact, directly supporting WP4's aim to explore experiential artifacts beyond traditional art contexts. - Analyzes VR's potential for artistic expression through perceptual restructuring, contributing to WP4's investigation of how new technologies expand the possibilities for creating experiential artifacts. - Situates VR within the broader context of human-technology interaction, aligning with WP4's objective to understand how technological advancements create new types of experiential artifacts. ## Typeface Aesthetics Paper ### WP1: The Notion - Contributes to WP1's goal of articulating the notion of experiential artifacts by investigating the tension between beauty and functional invisibility in typographic design. This supports WP1's objective to understand how artifacts can generate experiences even when their aesthetic qualities are subtle. - Analyzes how typefaces influence reading experience, directly addressing WP1's aim to explain how technique can generate experience in everyday contexts. - Examines the structure-function relationship in typography, contributing to WP1's focus on how artifacts perform their experiential function in virtue of their structure. ### WP2: The Taxonomy - Proposes several classification axes for WP2's taxonomy, including: - Visibility of aesthetic function (overtly aesthetic, functionally invisible, context-dependent artifacts) - Cognitive engagement (low-cognitive-load, high-cognitive-load, adaptive cognitive artifacts) - Functional-aesthetic balance and contextual adaptation - Temporal engagement and perceptual modality These classifications directly contribute to WP2's goal of developing a comprehensive taxonomy of experiential artifacts. - Offers a framework for categorizing typographic design based on its experiential effects, aligning with WP2's objective to classify artifacts based on the types of experiences they generate. ### WP4: Beyond Art - Explores typefaces as experiential artifacts in everyday contexts, directly supporting WP4's aim to investigate experiential artifacts beyond traditional art domains. - Demonstrates how design elements in daily life function as experiential artifacts, contributing to WP4's objective of understanding how non-art artifacts generate experiences. - Examines how typography shapes reading experiences, aligning with WP4's goal of exploring how technological and design advancements create new forms of experiential artifacts in everyday life. #### Bullet point draft of section for of beauty in use paper #agentivephenomenology #games #draft We have just seen that Nguyen's Harmony of Capacity could not explain the relationship between difficulty and aesthetic pleasure in using objects in the same way that it could for games. Here, we turn to another of Nguyen's harmonies, the Harmony of Action. Nguyen describes the Harmony of Action as the aesthetic quality arising from how well an individual's actions fit the demands of a situation: "When you time a jump just so in Super Mario Brothers; or when you figure out, during a rock climb, that you need to slide your hips over just enough to balance on that tiny nubbin of rock, you're experiencing more than the harmony of solution. You're experiencing your agency and action as fitting the demands of the environment. You experience, not only the fit between the obstacle and the solution, but the fit between the obstacle and yourself as the originator of those solutions. The harmony of action expands on the harmony of solution. The harmony of action concerns, not only how the solution fits the problem, but how my decision- making and action- generation were just right to generate that fitting solution:" Of the three harmonies, this one seems most promising for our purposes. It directly relates to the experience of interacting with an object and could explain why some objects feel good to use, beyond mere efficiency. Real-life actions such as cutting a steak "just so" with a sharp and well-weighted knife seems like they could be aesthetically satisfying in the same way that make Mario jump "just so" can be. However, this is not to say that real-world actions are harmonious in the same way that video game actions are. First, [explain in detail how real-world enviroments differ, and how this has a knock on effect as to the types of actions that *are* a good fit for a particular (game or real-world environment)] Second, if we consider Horgan's ideas about the phenomenology of agency we can see the relation between type of environment and which actions fit, is reflected in the phenomenology. One way of seeing this is to consider how a game environment and a real-world environment differ, and how this affects the experience of one's actions as fitting the demands of the environment. • Means-ends teleology captures our understanding of actions as steps toward achieving certain goals. • In the context of "fitting the demands of the environment," it relates to how we perceive the chain of actions and goals as responding to the constraints and opportunities presented by our surroundings. • In Super Mario Brothers, the environment is the game world, with its clearly defined rules, obstacles, and objectives. • The means-ends teleology is tightly constrained within this artificial environment. • When a player makes Mario jump over a pit, they are fitting their action to the immediate demand of the game environment - the need to cross a gap to progress. • This jump is a means to the end of clearing the obstacle, which in turn is a means to completing the level, advancing in the game, and ultimately rescuing Princess Peach. • Each action fits neatly into a clear, predetermined chain of means and ends, all contained within the game world. • The experience of "fitting" in Mario is immediate and unambiguous. • When the player times a jump perfectly to clear an obstacle or defeat an enemy, there's an instant sense of having met the environment's demand. • The feedback is clear and immediate: Mario clears the gap or defeats the enemy, and the player experiences a moment of harmony between their action and the game's requirements. • In contrast, consider the experience of using a well-designed chef's knife. • Here, the "environment" extends beyond the immediate physical surroundings to encompass the broader context of the user's life, including cultural practices, personal goals, and social relationships. • The means-ends teleology in this context is more complex and interconnected with this broader environment. • When a chef uses the knife to chop vegetables, they are fitting their action not just to the immediate physical demands of cutting, but to a whole range of environmental factors. • The act of chopping is a means to preparing ingredients, which is a means to creating a dish, which might be a means to nourishing oneself or others, expressing creativity, or participating in a cultural tradition. • Each of these ends can further connect to broader life goals and values, such as maintaining health, nurturing relationships, or preserving heritage. • The experience of "fitting" when using the knife is thus more nuanced and multifaceted. • A chef might experience a sense of harmony not just in the immediate act of cutting (though this too can provide a sense of fitting, especially with a well-designed knife), but also in how this action aligns with their broader goals and values. • The feedback is less immediate and clear-cut than in a game, unfolding over time and across multiple domains of experience. • Purposiveness, the experience of actions as being done for specific purposes, both immediate and overarching, also manifests differently in games and design interactions when viewed through the lens of "fitting the demands of the environment." • In Super Mario Brothers, the purposiveness of actions is clear-cut and contained within the game world. • The purpose of each action - be it jumping, collecting coins, or defeating enemies - is defined by the game's rules and objectives. • When a player makes Mario jump, the purpose is instantly apparent: to clear an obstacle or reach a platform. • This clarity of purpose contributes to the immediate sense of fitting the environment's demands. • The player always knows why they are performing each action, and how it fits into the game's structure. • The experience of purposiveness in Mario is characterized by its immediacy and singularity. • Each action typically serves a single, clear purpose within the game environment. • This simplicity allows for a direct and unambiguous experience of fitting one's actions to the environment's demands. • In contrast, the purposiveness involved in using a well-designed chef's knife presents a more layered experience of fitting one's actions to environmental demands. • The immediate purpose might be to chop vegetables efficiently, but this action is typically embedded in a richer intentional structure that responds to a more complex "environment." • A chef using a knife might be aware of multiple levels of purpose simultaneously: 1. Immediate purpose: To cut the vegetables into appropriate sizes and shapes, fitting the immediate physical demands of the task. 2. Short-term purpose: To prepare ingredients for a specific dish, fitting the demands of a recipe or culinary tradition. 3. Medium-term purpose: To create a meal for oneself or others, fitting social or nutritional demands. 4. Long-term purposes: To maintain a healthy diet, express creativity through cooking, participate in cultural traditions, or develop culinary skills, fitting broader life goals and values. • Each of these purposes represents a different way in which the action of using the knife fits the demands of the user's extended "environment." • Unlike in the game, where purposes are predefined and limited, the purposes involved in using the knife can vary widely based on the user's personal context, goals, and values. • This multilayered purposiveness allows for a richer, more complex experience of fitting one's actions to environmental demands. • The user of the knife can simultaneously experience the satisfaction of meeting immediate physical demands (successfully chopping a vegetable) and the fulfillment of fitting their actions to broader life purposes (nurturing relationships, expressing creativity, maintaining health). • Furthermore, the experience of fitting one's actions to environmental demands in design interactions can evolve over time. • As a user becomes more skilled with the knife, or as their life circumstances change, they may discover new ways in which their use of the knife fits (or can be made to fit) the demands of their environment. • This dynamic nature of purposiveness in design interactions contrasts with the more static, predefined purposiveness of game actions. • The examination of means-ends teleology and purposiveness through the lens of "fitting the demands of the environment" reveals fundamental differences between the agentive phenomenology of game actions and design interactions. • In games like Super Mario Brothers, the experience of fitting is immediate, clear-cut, and contained within the artificial game environment. • The player's actions fit neatly into a predetermined structure of means, ends, and purposes, leading to a focused and intense, but ultimately limited, aesthetic experience. • In design interactions, as exemplified by the use of a well-designed chef's knife, the experience of fitting one's actions to environmental demands is more complex, nuanced, and expansive. • The "environment" extends beyond the immediate physical context to encompass the user's broader life world. • The means-ends relationships and purposes involved are more varied and interconnected, allowing for a richer and more personally meaningful aesthetic experience. • This understanding enhances our appreciation of design aesthetics. • Well-designed objects facilitate aesthetically pleasing experiences not just through their visual or tactile properties, or through momentary harmonies of action, but by enabling a deep and evolving sense of fit between our actions and the multifaceted demands of our life-world. • The aesthetics of design, then, is about how objects allow us to experience our agency as fitting harmoniously within the complex web of purposes, values, and relationships that constitute our lived environment. • This deeper, more contextually embedded form of aesthetic appreciation sets design apart from games and other more constrained forms of aesthetic experience. • It offers a form of aesthetic engagement that can evolve and deepen over time, as users develop skills, form attachments, and discover new ways in which the designed object allows them to fit their actions to the changing demands of their environment. • By recognizing these distinctions, we can better appreciate the unique aesthetic qualities that well-designed objects bring to our everyday experiences and the profound ways in which they can shape and enhance our interactions with the world. #### Draft of section 4 of the agency paper A new version of section 4 of the beauty in use paper #agentivephenomenology #games **Agentive Phenomenology and Intentional Structure** In Section 3, we explored how Nguyen's concept of harmony of capacity, while illuminating for game aesthetics, has limited application to the aesthetics of design. Here, we turn to another of Nguyen's 'harmonies' - the harmony of action - to further elucidate the differences between the aesthetics of design and the aesthetics of game playing. Nguyen describes the harmony of action as the aesthetic quality arising from how well an individual's actions fit the demands of a situation. He illustrates this concept as follows: "When you time a jump just so in Super Mario Brothers; or when you figure out, during a rock climb, that you need to slide your hips over just enough to balance on that tiny nubbin of rock, you're experiencing more than the harmony of solution. You're experiencing your agency and action as fitting the demands of the environment." (Nguyen, p. 108) This idea of "experiencing your agency and action as fitting the demands of the environment" provides a way in which which we can examine the aesthetics of both game playing and design interactions. However, as we will see, the nature of this "fitting" and the "environment" in question differ substantially between these two domains. To understand these differences, we need to examine the depth of intentional structure in design interactions compared to game actions, focusing particularly on the aspects of means-ends teleology and purposiveness. Means-ends teleology captures our understanding of actions as steps toward achieving certain goals. In the context of "fitting the demands of the environment," it relates to how we perceive the chain of actions and goals as responding to the constraints and opportunities presented by our surroundings. In Super Mario Brothers, the environment is the game world, with its clearly defined rules, obstacles, and objectives. The means-ends teleology is tightly constrained within this artificial environment. When a player makes Mario jump over a pit, they are fitting their action to the immediate demand of the game environment - the need to cross a gap to progress. This jump is a means to the end of clearing the obstacle, which in turn is a means to completing the level, advancing in the game, and ultimately rescuing Princess Peach. Each action fits neatly into a clear, predetermined chain of means and ends, all contained within the game world. The experience of "fitting" in Mario is immediate and unambiguous. When the player times a jump perfectly to clear an obstacle or defeat an enemy, there's an instant sense of having met the environment's demand. The feedback is clear and immediate: Mario clears the gap or defeats the enemy, and the player experiences a moment of harmony between their action and the game's requirements. In contrast, consider the experience of using a well-designed chef's knife. Here, the "environment" extends beyond the immediate physical surroundings to encompass the broader context of the user's life, including cultural practices, personal goals, and social relationships. The means-ends teleology in this context is more complex and interconnected with this broader environment. When a chef uses the knife to chop vegetables, they are fitting their action not just to the immediate physical demands of cutting, but to a whole range of environmental factors. The act of chopping is a means to preparing ingredients, which is a means to creating a dish, which might be a means to nourishing oneself or others, expressing creativity, or participating in a cultural tradition. Each of these ends can further connect to broader life goals and values, such as maintaining health, nurturing relationships, or preserving heritage. The experience of "fitting" when using the knife is thus more nuanced and multifaceted. A chef might experience a sense of harmony not just in the immediate act of cutting (though this too can provide a sense of fitting, especially with a well-designed knife), but also in how this action aligns with their broader goals and values. The feedback is less immediate and clear-cut than in a game, unfolding over time and across multiple domains of experience. Purposiveness, the experience of actions as being done for specific purposes, both immediate and overarching, also manifests differently in games and design interactions when viewed through the lens of "fitting the demands of the environment." In Super Mario Brothers, the purposiveness of actions is clear-cut and contained within the game world. The purpose of each action - be it jumping, collecting coins, or defeating enemies - is defined by the game's rules and objectives. When a player makes Mario jump, the purpose is instantly apparent: to clear an obstacle or reach a platform. This clarity of purpose contributes to the immediate sense of fitting the environment's demands. The player always knows why they are performing each action, and how it fits into the game's structure. The experience of purposiveness in Mario is characterized by its immediacy and singularity. Each action typically serves a single, clear purpose within the game environment. This simplicity allows for a direct and unambiguous experience of fitting one's actions to the environment's demands. In contrast, the purposiveness involved in using a well-designed chef's knife presents a more layered experience of fitting one's actions to environmental demands. The immediate purpose might be to chop vegetables efficiently, but this action is typically embedded in a richer intentional structure that responds to a more complex "environment." A chef using a knife might be aware of multiple levels of purpose simultaneously: 1. Immediate purpose: To cut the vegetables into appropriate sizes and shapes, fitting the immediate physical demands of the task. 2. Short-term purpose: To prepare ingredients for a specific dish, fitting the demands of a recipe or culinary tradition. 3. Medium-term purpose: To create a meal for oneself or others, fitting social or nutritional demands. 4. Long-term purposes: To maintain a healthy diet, express creativity through cooking, participate in cultural traditions, or develop culinary skills, fitting broader life goals and values. Each of these purposes represents a different way in which the action of using the knife fits the demands of the user's extended "environment." Unlike in the game, where purposes are predefined and limited, the purposes involved in using the knife can vary widely based on the user's personal context, goals, and values. This multilayered purposiveness allows for a richer, more complex experience of fitting one's actions to environmental demands. The user of the knife can simultaneously experience the satisfaction of meeting immediate physical demands (successfully chopping a vegetable) and the fulfillment of fitting their actions to broader life purposes (nurturing relationships, expressing creativity, maintaining health). Furthermore, the experience of fitting one's actions to environmental demands in design interactions can evolve over time. As a user becomes more skilled with the knife, or as their life circumstances change, they may discover new ways in which their use of the knife fits (or can be made to fit) the demands of their environment. This dynamic nature of purposiveness in design interactions contrasts with the more static, predefined purposiveness of game actions. The examination of means-ends teleology and purposiveness through the lens of "fitting the demands of the environment" reveals fundamental differences between the agentive phenomenology of game actions and design interactions. In games like Super Mario Brothers, the experience of fitting is immediate, clear-cut, and contained within the artificial game environment. The player's actions fit neatly into a predetermined structure of means, ends, and purposes, leading to a focused and intense, but ultimately limited, aesthetic experience. In design interactions, as exemplified by the use of a well-designed chef's knife, the experience of fitting one's actions to environmental demands is more complex, nuanced, and expansive. The "environment" extends beyond the immediate physical context to encompass the user's broader life world. The means-ends relationships and purposes involved are more varied and interconnected, allowing for a richer and more personally meaningful aesthetic experience. This understanding enhances our appreciation of design aesthetics. Well-designed objects facilitate aesthetically pleasing experiences not just through their visual or tactile properties, or through momentary harmonies of action, but by enabling a deep and evolving sense of fit between our actions and the multifaceted demands of our life-world. The aesthetics of design, then, is about how objects allow us to experience our agency as fitting harmoniously within the complex web of purposes, values, and relationships that constitute our lived environment. This deeper, more contextually embedded form of aesthetic appreciation sets design apart from games and other more constrained forms of aesthetic experience. It offers a form of aesthetic engagement that can evolve and deepen over time, as users develop skills, form attachments, and discover new ways in which the designed object allows them to fit their actions to the changing demands of their environment. By recognizing these distinctions, we can better appreciate the unique aesthetic qualities that well-designed objects bring to our everyday experiences and the profound ways in which they can shape and enhance our interactions with the world.