# created ```dataview LIST WITHOUT ID file.link FROM -"windsurf" WHERE file.cday = date(this.file.name) AND !startswith(file.folder, "windsurf") SORT file.cday ASC ``` # modified ```dataview LIST WITHOUT ID file.link FROM -"windsurf" WHERE file.mday = date(this.file.name) AND !startswith(file.folder, "windsurf") SORT file.mday ASC ``` --- # [[diary and thoughts]] #thought #diary --- # Notes ### Slide 2: Where We’ve Been ▪ Key point ◦ We already have two tools: **FB looks** (looking fit, elegance, visual tension) and **DB variants** (constraint; comparative/“slide-show”). ◦ Today uses those to read **Forsey’s** design-specific **[[dependent beauty]]** via Favara-Kurkowski (F-K). ▪ Insight [[from text]] ◦ F-K situates Forsey against two drifts in [[everyday aesthetics]]: **category blur** and **ethics bleed**. ▪ “We can best begin with an **aesthetics of the everyday** if we **focus on design**.” (Forsey 2013, 236) ### Slide 3: CRITICAL: Vocabulary Warning ▪ Key point ◦ In **Ch. 4**, “[[functional beauty]]” = **appearance families** generated by function-knowledge. ◦ In **F-K**, “functional-beauty accounts” = umbrella that **includes** Forsey’s **DB** (a judgement-ground). ▪ Insight [[from text]] ◦ Keep levels separate to avoid equivocation in discussion and when testing objections. ▪ “What Forsey shows is **how** the function specifically affects this **impure** aesthetic judgement, **not** that only function affects it.” (F-K 2021) ### Slide 4: Roadmap ▪ Key point ◦ Four beats: (1) FB vs DB; (2) three DB interpretations; (3) Forsey’s account; (4) objections + replies; (+) toolkit for analysis. ▪ Insight [[from text]] ◦ This mirrors F-K’s [[argumentative structure]]: clarify target → test with cases → secure scope. ### Slide 5: [[Functional Beauty]]: Quick Recap ▪ Key point ◦ **Looking fit** (apt to purpose), **elegance** (economy), **visual tension** (precarious-but-works). ◦ Use FB to **describe** how function-knowledge shapes **appearance**. ▪ Insight [[from text]] ◦ This is complementary to DB: FB = phenomenology; DB = normative ground. ### Slide 6: FB vs DB: The Key Contrast ▪ Key point ◦ **FB describes** how it **looks** once you [[know what]] it’s for. ◦ **DB justifies** beauty **in virtue of** purposive fit to a concept/kind. ▪ Insight [[from text]] ◦ Forsey’s DB = **design-specific** because it centres _intended function_ and everyday artefacts. ### Slide 8: Kant’s [[Dependent Beauty]] ▪ Key point ◦ **[[Free beauty]]** presupposes no concept; **[[dependent beauty]]** presupposes a concept of what it ought to be. ▪ Insight from text ◦ Design is a natural home for DB because artefacts are made **for** purposes we recognise. ▪ “DB… presupposes such a concept and the **perfection** of the object in accordance with it.” (Kant/Forsey paraphrase) ### Slide 9: Interpretation 1: Guyer’s Negative Constraint ▪ Key point ◦ Function mainly **rules out** forms; remaining beauty is not _because of_ function. ▪ Insight from text ◦ Too weak for modern design, where function often seems **aesthetic-making** rather than merely limiting. ### Slide 10: Interpretation 2: Wicks’s Contingency ▪ Key point ◦ We (tacitly) sense **alternative realisations**; appreciate this form as apt among many. ▪ Insight from text ◦ Treat “mental slide-show” as a **heuristic** of underdetermination, not a literal inner cinema. ### Slide 11: Interpretation 3: Simplicity/Elegance ▪ Key point ◦ Beauty tracks **economical fit** given purpose (clever minimal solutions). ▪ Insight from text ◦ Risk: crowns **economy** rather than **purposive fit** itself; Forsey recentres the category of **design**. ### Slide 12: Summary: Three Views Compared ▪ Key point ◦ **Constraint**, **contingency**, **elegance** — partial pictures of DB. ▪ Insight from text ◦ Forsey incorporates that there are **many ways** to realise a function and those ways **enter appraisal**. ▪ “An object can **fulfil its function in a variety of ways**, [and] these ways… are part of our overall appraisal.” (Forsey 2013, 164) ### Slide 14: Forsey’s Starting Problems ▪ Key point ◦ Two pitfalls in everyday aesthetics: **ontological confusion** (art/craft/design/nature) and **ethical slide**. ▪ Insight from text ◦ Forsey’s remedy: focus on **design qua design**; keep the aesthetic **autonomous** from ethics. ▪ “What many… have in common is a desire to link… aesthetic experiences… with **moral** judgements.” (Forsey 2013, 201) ### Slide 15: Function vs Use: The Critical Distinction ▪ Key point ◦ **Function = intended function** (designer-anchored concept); **use ≠ function** (user appropriation). ▪ Insight from text ◦ Correct DB judgements **track the artefact kind** and its intended purpose, not ad hoc uses. ▪ “While a **tyre** may be used as a swing, its **function is not** to be a swing.” (Forsey 2013, 30) ▪ “Our appraisal… is tied to **intended function** rather than to whatever **uses** they might serve.” (Forsey 2013, 43) ### Slide 16: Four Intuitive Characteristics of Design ▪ Key point ◦ **Functionality**; **immanence**; **muteness** (category heuristic); **mass-presence**. ▪ Insight from text ◦ These are **descriptive markers** used to demarcate design from art/craft; they are **not essences**. ### Slide 17: Design vs Craft vs Art ▪ Key point ◦ **Craft:** feel the maker’s **hand**; **art:** **expressive content**; **design:** often **anonymous** purposive fit. ▪ Insight from text ◦ This supports distinct criteria in discussions: design judged for **how it realises** purpose, not for authorial expressiveness. ▪ “We **feel no individual hand** at work when we appraise a **laptop** or a **car**.” (Forsey 2013, 180) ### Slide 18: Forsey’s Core Claim ▪ Key point ◦ In design, beauty is **because of the perfection** with which the artefact fulfils its **intended purpose**. ▪ Insight from text ◦ DB doesn’t exclude **free beauty** or **expressive** properties; they’re just **non-criterial** for everyday design. ▪ “We evaluate design objects **because of the perfection** in the way they **fulfil their purpose**.” (Forsey 2013) ### Slide 20: Criticism 1: Impractical Objects ▪ Key point ◦ Concept-driven works that **sabotage usability** (e.g., Kamprani’s _Uncomfortable_ series) seem to defy DB. ▪ Insight from text ◦ F-K: Such cases can be treated as **free beauty**, **negative DB** (qua chair), or **re-categorised** (art/critique). ▪ Kamprani’s stated aims: “**Comfort is better conceived when absent**” and “**function is… most important**.” (Kamprani 2018, cited in F-K 2021) ### Slide 21: Why This Seems to Challenge Forsey ▪ Key point ◦ Objection: If DB ties beauty to **successful** purposive fit, impractical design is **disqualified**. ▪ Insight from text ◦ F-K: That overstates DB; it explains **how** function bears on an **impure** judgement, not that function is the **only** input. ▪ “Functional accounts are not consistent with design cases in which aesthetic judgements are not entirely supported by… **functional success**.” (F-K’s précis of the objection) ### Slide 22: Reply Part 1: Multiple Judgement Types ▪ Key point ◦ **Kantian** point: a lot of appreciation is **impure** (concept-laden). DB operates **alongside** other grounds. ▪ Insight from text ◦ The uncomfortable chair can be judged **as design (negatively)**, **as free beauty**, or **as art/critique**. ▪ “Kant suggests… most art is **not** captured by a **pure** judgement of taste.” (Stecker 1987, 89) ### Slide 23: Reply Part 2: The Ontological Question ▪ Key point ◦ Fix the **category** before applying **design** criteria. ▪ Insight from text ◦ If a piece is best read as **sculpture/critique**, design-specific DB isn’t the right test — and that’s not a flaw in DB. ▪ “What Forsey shows is **how** function affects the **impure** aesthetic judgement.” (F-K 2021) ### Slide 24: Criticism 1 Summary ▪ Key point ◦ DB **doesn’t require** practical success to be the **only** determinant; it structures **how** function bears on judgement. ▪ Insight from text ◦ Category discipline dissolves much of the counterexample pressure. ### Slide 25: Criticism 2: Multiple Functions ▪ Key point ◦ Hybrids (e.g., **Wong’s _This is a Lamp_**): **chair + lamp**; which function sets the standard? ▪ Insight from text ◦ The objection assumes **single-function essentialism**. ### Slide 26: Why This Seems to Challenge Forsey ▪ Key point ◦ If DB needs **one** proper function, multi-function objects seem to **break** the model. ▪ Insight from text ◦ This is a misread of Forsey’s **semantic** account of function. ### Slide 27: Reply: Intended Function is Semantic ▪ Key point ◦ **Intended function** is **semantic/conceptual**, not an inner essence; it can be **compound**. ▪ Insight from text ◦ DB handles **innovation** and **category formation**; appraisal includes the **ways** a function is achieved. ▪ “Function… is established by the **designer (intended function)**… [and] may **sport functional innovations**.” (Forsey 2013, 58) ▪ “An object can **fulfil its function in a variety of ways**…” (Forsey 2013, 164) ### Slide 28: How to Judge Hybrid Functions ▪ Key point ◦ **First encounter**: treat as **free beauty** or make **separate DB** judgements (as chair; as lamp). ◦ **After stabilisation**: judge as a **compound kind** (“lighting chair”) with a unified DB appraisal. ▪ Insight from text ◦ Forsey’s DB is **time-sensitive** to how kinds consolidate in practice. ### Slide 29: The Historical Dimension ▪ Key point ◦ Kinds **evolve**; practice can **stabilise** new concepts; DB tracks that trajectory. ▪ Insight from text ◦ Wong’s lamp-chair extends existing kinds; not ex nihilo novelty. ### Slide 30: Criticism 2 Summary ▪ Key point ◦ DB tolerates **multi-function** via **compound intentions** and **historical stabilisation**; separate DB judgements are legitimate early on. ▪ Insight from text ◦ Semantic view = flexibility without relativism. ### Slide 31: Criticism 3: Exclusivity (Most Serious) ▪ Key point ◦ Charge: “**Muteness**” sidelines **expressive** properties; DB is **exclusivist**. ▪ Insight from text ◦ Conflates **demarcation** (marking off design) with **exclusion** (banning expression). ### Slide 32: Reply Part 1: Descriptive Not Essential ▪ Key point ◦ “Muteness” is a **descriptive** category marker for **everyday** design; not an essential property. ▪ Insight from text ◦ Allows expressive **exceptions** without letting expression become **criterial**. ▪ “‘Muteness’ is a **descriptive criterion**, not an essential property of design objects.” (F-K 2021; Forsey 2013, 11) ### Slide 33: Reply Part 2: Purpose of Distinction ▪ Key point ◦ Distinction prevents **art-centric** takes from colonising all aesthetics. ▪ Insight from text ◦ Everyday artefacts are usually not approached as vehicles of a singular authorial message. ▪ “We do not generally approach our **toothbrushes** or **coffee-pots**… as the result of a **singular vision**.” (Forsey 2013, 66) ### Slide 34: Multiple Beauties Possible ▪ Key point ◦ DB isn’t the **only** beauty applicable to design; expressive/free modes exist as **non-criterial** cases. ▪ Insight from text ◦ Over-emphasising expression risks re-casting all aesthetics in the **fine-arts** mould. ▪ It would proclaim “our response to **fine arts** as the form all aesthetic experience should take.” (Forsey 2013, 195) ### Slide 35: Criticism 3 Summary ▪ Key point ◦ “Muteness” **demarcates**; it doesn’t **ban** expressiveness. DB remains central for **anonymous, everyday** design appraisal. ▪ Insight from text ◦ This secures design’s place in aesthetics without reducing it to art or beautification. ### Slide 37: Dependent Beauty Analysis Checklist ▪ Key point ◦ Apply this workflow live: ◦ **Identify kind + intended function.** ◦ **Explain how form realises function** (mechanisms, affordances). ◦ **List constraints** the function imposes (Guyer lens). ◦ **Consider viable alternatives** and why this one is apt (Wicks lens). ◦ **Log expressive features** as **non-criterial** add-ons. ### Slide 38: Pair-Share Activity: The Hybrid Function ▪ Key point ◦ Case: **bookshelf-planter** (holds books + grows plants). ◦ Questions: Is intended function **compound**? How would you split/merge DB judgements at first encounter? ◦ If it excels at books but fails plants, what follows for DB? Would repeated practice stabilise a **new kind**? ### Slide 39: Summary: Three Problems Resolved ▪ Key point ◦ **Impracticality:** multiple judgement types + category discipline. ◦ **Multi-function:** compound intended functions + historical stabilisation. ◦ **Exclusivity:** “muteness” = demarcation; DB not exclusive of other beauties. ### Slide 40: Why This Matters ▪ Key point ◦ Secures an **autonomous** aesthetics of design; centres everyday artefacts. ▪ Insight from text ◦ Design connects aesthetics to ordinary life, extending aesthetics beyond philosophy of art. ▪ An aesthetics of design “**broadens** aesthetic inquiry and **re-integrates** it into philosophy as a whole.” (Forsey 2013, 3) ### Slide 41: Common Pitfalls ▪ Key point ◦ Don’t **confuse use with function**; don’t make expression **criterial**; don’t assume **single-function** essences; don’t conflate **FB** (looks) with **DB** (grounds). ▪ Insight from text ◦ Keep **intended function** front and centre; treat expressive/novel cases as **non-criterial** or **early-stage** until kinds stabilise. ##### You said: Please give me the text for a slide which I can drop in to replace slide 6. Instead of a comparison it should just give me the general features of dependent beauty accounts. (the things that forsey, and the others all share) it should definitelyt mention that it is about judgement as well. bit not only that ###### ChatGPT said: Thought for 30s **Slide 6: Dependent Beauty — Shared Features (across accounts)** - **Aesthetic _judgement_** ◦ Claims of beauty are made _in virtue of_ purposive fit (means–ends aptness), not just how it looks. ◦ Reason-giving: invites agreement/disagreement with standards, not mere preference. - **Concept-dependence** ◦ Judgement presupposes a concept/kind of what the thing _ought to be_ (e.g., kettle, chair, pen). ◦ The concept frames what counts as success/failure. - **Function/purpose as a normative standard** ◦ Function supplies criteria for correct appraisal (what the object is for sets the bar). ◦ **Forsey:** anchors this in _intended function_; other DB views may use role- or practice-based function. - **Form–purpose fit (how the purpose is realised)** ◦ We evaluate features that _realise_ the purpose (structure, mechanism, ergonomics, affordances). ◦ Marks often include aptness, efficiency, reliability, economy/simplicity—context decides which matter. - **Plurality of realisations** ◦ Functions underdetermine form: there are many admissible ways to do it. ◦ Appraisal can involve (tacit) comparison with alternative realisations. - **Category- and context-sensitivity** ◦ Standards vary by artefact kind and situation of use; what’s salient for a kettle isn’t for a bridge. ◦ Guardrail: distinguish **function** from ad hoc **use** when fixing the relevant standard. - **Compatibility with other aesthetic grounds** ◦ DB coexists with free beauty and expressive/affective values; it doesn’t claim exclusivity. ◦ In _design_, function-related reasons are typically _criterial_; expressive features are often _non-criterial_. - **Epistemic and historical dimensions** ◦ Knowledge/recognition of function is needed for proper judgement (concepts, conventions, practices). ◦ Kinds evolve; as categories stabilise, standards of aptness can shift accordingly.