# [[Beauty in Use]] Scrap and aesthetic user experience - Why must Nguyen solve [[the problem]] of difficulty? - The difficulty arises in part because of him trying to provide an action based aesthetics of games. - The objective of games is often useless, but, according to Nguyen, this does not matter, it is the playing that matters. - game designers sculpt agency, providing unique opportunities for (potentially) unique actions, and herein lies [[the aesthetics]]. - so what are the differences between game use and [[using designed objects]]? - First, there is [[the goal]]: normally arbrary in the case of games, but normally real when [[using designed objects]]. - Perhaps there is a second? The core of our [[aesthetic appreciation]] of games, according to Nguyen, is the actions that they elict from their players. - Now, we might think that [[designed objects]] are not the same. r - have I got it? - Nguyen seeks to show that the aesthetic core of games is that they elicit [[pleasing actions]] from their users. - We are not going as far as saying that this is the *core* of aesthetics of design, but we are definitely trying to say that it is a significant component. - However, here, we find a difficulty: Included in Nguyen’s account is his description of three harmonies, that is, three qualities of actions that games might elicit from users. They are: - Harmony of Solution - Harmony of Action - Harmony of Capacity - However, if we look at these components it does not seem as though they will be suitable for fleshing out [[the aesthetics]] of use. -Harmony of Solution: Nguyen is explicit that this is not agentive (not about something the player *does*), and is equally well appreciated by spectators. Example, a cool move in chess. - Harmony of capacity: Nguyen is explicit that this something the real world does not provide, and it is true, it is hard to think of examples when take pleasure in working tools to our capacity. - Harmony of Action: this is more promising, we might just be able to say that using tools is aesthetically pleasing in the same way that playing games or doing a ballet is. - But I worry harmony of action is not specific enough. - In games, the aim might well be arbritary, but with tool use it isn’t - Why is this important? Because it seems important to goal use that it is goal-directed. - How do we balance gracefulness etc. with goal pursuing? - In a game we might perform an action just because it is aesthetically pleasing. - [think of an example of a game in which there is a sudden moment in which one does something silly partly because the sensation of doing this action is pleasant] - perhaps hide and seek? - one way to make making coffee more enjoyable is to play a game of hide and seek while it is boiling, but a company couldn’t make the coffee machine more pleasurable to use by putting in extranious games of hide and seek. - In fact, there is a sense that any action we make while interacting with an object is goal-directed. Meta-thought. The aim of writing above is to provide a prompt I can put into claude along side the beginning of the introduction. he has to make a paragraph or two out of it. Brainstorm on aesthetically [[pleasing actions]] and difficulty level - The aim of this 15 minutes is to come up with a succinct way of saying why this is is so important for user experience centred aesthetics of design - [[designed objects]] have a [[proper function]]. - We use them to do things that we would either not be able to do without them (you could not iron the creases out of your clothes without an iron, trouser press etc.), - or to do things more easily, more efficiently, more quickly etc. (you could travel 20 kilometres by walking, but it would be much quicker to use a car) - we would certainly think less of an object that is difficult or frustrating to use. think of a tv remote control. - but there also seem to be many cases in which aesthetically [[pleasing actions]] do not line up straightforwardly with [[easy actions]]. - Example - but why is this so important. - and how is going ti impact the second half of the paper. - I am uninspired. - what does nguyen do? - he puts forward the harmony of capacity as a means of explaining why some people like difficult games. - what does he say about why we like it? - but this cannot be a way of explaining O Ok, so now I need to work out how to do the introduction. This would be a good idea to make the structure more coherent. So, what is the way to begin. - 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 stratocastor 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 scuplture include: it’s representational content, the sculptor’s intentions, etc. but these sorts of thing are not relevant when we aesthetically assess the stratocastor. - 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. 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. fffffffffffffffffff - 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 Here's the text converted into bullet points, with spaces between paragraphs: • Good design seems like something that we can aesthetically appreciate. • For example we appreciate 'design classics' like the Swiss Railway Clock, the Bialetti, and the iPod. • There are also commonly agreed upon examples of bad design –TV remotes cluttered with meaningless buttons, phone chargers with plugs so heavy they slip from the outlet. • An aesthetic account of design, however, should also consider whether it is possible to aesthetically appreciate what the designer Donald Norman calls invisible design, "design which fits our needs so well that the design is invisible, serving us without drawing attention to itself" (Norman XXXX). • We will argue that the main aesthetic accounts find it hard to accommodate invisible design, and we propose a new account that can do so by casting agency and use as crucial to the aesthetic appreciation of design. • We will show that such a strategy can lead to a more compelling aesthetic account not only of invisible design but of design in general. • In the first part of the paper, we examine what we take to be the two main approaches to the aesthetic appreciation of design in contemporary philosophy: Parsons and Carlson's Functional Beauty account, and Forsey's Kantian account. • We argue that, as it is a purely perception based account, Functional Beauty, is unsuitable for invisible design, and that this remains true even if we extend the account to non-visual perceptual modalities. • Forsey's Kantian account fares better: appreciation on her account involves making a judgement of taste about an object's 'dependent beauty', and such a judgement incorporates not only perception but also use of the object. • This suggests a way in which we can appreciate invisible design: a well-designed object will elicit aesthetically pleasing actions from users. • However, it is here where another question emerges, one which Forsey does not focus on: what makes an action or interaction aesthetically pleasing? • Forsey, indeed, tends to take actions to be relevant to the aesthetic appreciation of design mainly in the sense that such actions enable one to assess the functioning of the object. • In the second part of the paper, we will argue, instead, that the actions that a work of design affords can directly contribute to the aesthetic appreciation of that object in virtue of their own aesthetic qualities. • Despite its purported perceptual elusivity, it does not seem strange to think of occasions in which we aesthetically appreciate the use of artefacts. • Think of a professional musician getting her viola back after a period of repair. • When she plays it again for the first time, her appreciation will certainly involve what she hears, touches and sees, but it also seems right to say that she also appreciates the feeling of playing this viola with which she is so comfortable. • It is at least not obvious that the feeling of playing (or doing, or using etc.) can be reduced to a cluster of perceptual experiences. • Think of how her experience will differ playing her viola to playing a less familiar model, or a cheaper one. • The idea that one can aesthetically appreciate one's own actions has been defended by Montero in the context of dance(REF), and also by Nguyen in the context of games(REF). • While Nguyen does not talk about what aesthetically pleasing actions are, Montero makes very interesting points about that, Specifically, she insists on proprioception as the main road to appreciate the aesthetic properties of one's own actions, and on aesthetic effortlessness as a prominent property of this kind. • Drawing on those notions, we will argue that part of our appreciation with designed objects concerns our aesthetically appreciating our interactions with these objects. • From our perspective, interacting with a well designed object would be akin to playing or dancing with a technical object. • Indeed, we can think of Steve Jobs getting close to saying something like this when he said the following: • "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." • A similar idea is also commonplace in reviews of consumer technology, or indeed any sort of technology. • The notion of appreciating invisible design extends to other domains. • Car and consumer technology reviews often refer to how objects feel to use. • Phrases like 'fun to drive' or 'smooth user experience' appear frequently in such contexts. • These evaluations may not be reducible to descriptions of perceptual experiences alone. • The iPod's click wheel interface provides an example. • Users often described scrolling through music libraries as effortless and enjoyable. • This appreciation seems to encompass more than just the tactile sensation of the wheel or the visual experience of the screen changing. • In sum, our aim is to highlight a dimension of design aesthetics that current philosophical theories have either not focussed on at all (in the case of Carlson and Parsons) or not focussed on to the extent to which it merits (in the case of Forsey). • However, we are not arguing that use is the only way to appreciate design, suggesting that existing theories should be rejected because they do not in themselves, account for it. • Rather, we consider the ideas we introduce in what follows as a supplement to existing theories, but an important and hitherto overlooked one. • As we are developing an aesthetic account of design based on use, our focus is on objects that can be used, in the sense that they need to be acted upon by their user to perform their function. • What we mean here is roughly the same as E.J. Lowe's distinction between utensils and machines. • Utensils are objects that require our active engagement to fulfil their function, and include things like knives, bicycles, and keys: if the user takes their hands off a knife it will cease cutting, if they stop pedalling they will slow to a halt. • Machines, on the other hand, can perform their function without need for constant contact with the user. • A radiator keeps heating whether we look at it or not, an electric fan will keep spinning until it is switched off. • While Lowe's distinction tracks our everyday understanding of utensils and machines for the most part, it does not always do so. • We would not normally think of a mercury thermometer or a bookshelf to be machines, but the former will track temperature, and the latter will keep your books suspended above the ground without user involvement, and so would come out on Lowe's account as machines. • There are also hybrid cases. • The iPod, for example, is utensil-like in that users have to move their finger or thumb around the click wheel to select a track, but machine-like in that once the track is selected music will play without further input. • Finally, it seems right to extend the notion of utensil to include objects which we make perceptual use of like signs, maps, books and websites. • Although we do not manipulate these objects with our physical bodies, we nevertheless use them to gain information about the world. • Our arguments concerning the aesthetics of use will apply to these things as well as knives, bicycles, and iPods. While I think that harmony of action picks out an interesting agentive aesthetic in games and designed objects. I think we might add another harmony, one which applies in particular to designed objects, but also to games. We could call this: The Harmony of Effortlessness. The sense that one’s abilities are working perfectly in tune and performing actions right at the limit of one’s capacities is, I think, a particularly special and profound experience of harmony between self and world. That special- ness helps to explains why we might seek games that are difficult for us. We want the harmony of capacity because it is offers us a feeling of fitting the world, practically speaking. An experience of beauty here, of harmonious fit, is something of a balm to the perpetual sense of friction between ourselves and the world. The satisfactions of this fit help to explain why pure striving players might be interested in difficulty, even if they uninterested in the value of difficult achievements themselves. Striving players here aren’t doing it in order to have done something difficult; they are doing something diffi- cult for the experience of harmony between their utmost capacities and the practical world. “First, there can be a harmony between act and challenge. In a beautiful Chess move, there is a harmony between the move and the situation it addresses. Here is a trap; there is an elegant resolution. Call this the harmony of solution. The harmony of solution is strictly a harmony between the solution and the obstacle; it makes no explicit reference to the actor or their capacities. The harmony of the solution is available to both spectator and player.”  - Nguyen thinks that it is something that is rarely found in the real (non-game) world. I will not consider, here at least, the possibility that this harmony plays any role in the aesthetics of design.  - harmony of action, on the other hand, seems like a promising candidate for applying to design. Certain actions feel good to do. Actions in video games are often talked of in terms of satisfaction [EXAMPLE]. We might say that well designed objects do the same. [EXAMPLE].  - While I think that harmony of action picks out an interesting agentive aesthetic in games and designed objects. I think we might add another harmony, one which applies in particular to designed objects, but also to games. We could call this: The Harmony of Effortlessness. ** ## Scrap on Forsey and Kant  **her interactive experience is not available to any audience. If someone has heard her play the reserve and now hears her play her real one, they might well notice that the returned viola produces more pleasing tones than the reserve. An audience might also notice that the returned viola is better to play than the reserve, they hear that the real viola allows for better playing than the reserve. But the experience of interaction is available only to the viola player.   Unlike the Functional Beauty account, Forsey's Kantian approach, by taking use into account, can also accommodate invisible design. Whether or not the actions that an object allows for are aesthetically pleasing can contribute to our overall aesthetic judgement of it. However, Forsey does not dwell on what it is for an action, or interaction, to be aesthetically pleasing. She tends to consider the use of a designed object as a means to the end of testing the functioning of it rather than as bearer of aesthetically relevant properties that can contribute to the aesthetic value of it.  According to Forsey’s Kantian approach, the aesthetic merit of the designed object depends not only on its appearance but also on the realisation of its purpose, and use is relevant to aesthetic appreciation inasmuch as enables one to ascertain whether the purpose is properly realised. In this way, Forsey avoids the shortcomings of the Functional Beauty account which, as we saw above, centres aesthetic appreciation around perception, focusing on qualities such as 'looking fit for function'. In Forsey’s Kantian account, instead, the appreciator, as a user, can assess not only whether the designed object looks  fit for function but especially whether it is fit for function.** ## three desiderata for the aesthetics of design paper if we adopt a functionalist rather than formalist approach to the aesthetics of design... - accommodating invisible design - accommodating pleasure of use. - accommodating diversity of achievement. ### 3.2 What are Aesthetically Pleasing Actions? We saw above ## 3 The Invisibility of Aesthetic Effortlessness - Montero quotes Bergson associating gracefulness with "perception of ease in motion" that allows "holding the future in the present" (p. 184) - Notes that "a deliberate focus on how one is moving may hinder one's performance of the movement" (p. 240) - This phenomenology of unselfconscious immersion in skillful action resonates with the "invisibility" of good design - Which often withdraws from explicit awareness to enable unimpeded, automatic engagement - Revealing itself negatively through snags, breakdowns and awkward self-consciousness - The aesthetic effortlessness of optimal design may thus be linked to a kind of experiential transparency - Fading into the background of absorbed, masterful action - Proprioceptively sensed mainly as an overarching feeling of fluid, economical, unencumbered competence - Noticed more in absence than presence ## 5. Montero and Proprioception An alternative approach to the aesthetics of design comes from considering the role of proprioception - our sense of the position and movement of our own bodies. philosopher Barbara Montero has recently argued that proprioception should be considered an aesthetic sense alongside vision and hearing. She notes that dancers, for instance, often proprioceptively feel the gracefulness or awkwardness of their own bodily movements, and that this is a genuine form of aesthetic appreciation (Montero 2006). If proprioception allows us to aesthetically appreciate qualities of our own bodily movements, this suggests it may also play a role in appreciating the aesthetics of using well- or poorly-designed objects. Consider the earlier examples of using a keyboard, a knife, and a bicycle. Typing on a keyboard, cutting with a knife, and riding a bicycle are all bodily activities that involve sequences of movements - of fingers on keys, of hand and arm in slicing, of legs in pedalling and arms in steering. A well-designed keyboard, on this view, would be one that makes the typing motion feel smooth, even, and precise to the user. A well-designed knife would make the cutting motion feel fluid and controlled. And a well-designed bicycle would make the movements of pedalling and steering feel graceful and intuitive. In each case, the user could proprioceptively feel positive aesthetic qualities in their own movements as they use the object. Conversely, a poorly-designed object would lead to proprioceptive feelings of awkwardness, strain, or imprecision in the user's object-directed movements. This proprioceptive approach to design aesthetics goes beyond the ideas of functional beauty and haptic touch in a few ways. Functional beauty is a matter of appreciating the fit between an object's form and its function, but it tends to focus on qualities of the form that can be perceived through vision or touch. The proprioceptive account, in contrast, locates the aesthetics of design in how it feels to put that form into function through one's own bodily movements. Haptic touch, as discussed by Roberts, allows us to perceive certain functionally relevant qualities of an object, like the lightness and flexibility of a bicycle frame. But it does not encompass the full range of aesthetic feelings, like fluidity or precision of movement, that arise through actively using an object. The proprioceptive aesthetics of object use is not just about passively feeling qualities of the object, but about feeling the quality of one's own actions upon and with the object. It is an aesthetics of the interaction between body and object, not just of the object itself. ### 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 thefacilitation 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. ** # Scrap on saito and use and perception Focus on the proximal senses is relevant to design, too, because while we need to actively use designed artifacts to appreciate and appraise them, this engagement will involve more than sight and sound, as we saw with Saito’s example of the chair, above. Our appreciation of a floral display cannot be complete without the aroma of the flowers, and even our appreciation of (or distaste for) the air fresheners that dangle from cars’ rear view mirrors— as designed objects—requires smell as perhaps the primary sense with which we appraise them. Saito claims that the aesthetic value of a knife, for instance, “consists not only of its visual qualities but also of its feeling in my hand . . . [and] how smoothly and effortlessly I can cut an object.” The “sensuous aspects converge and work together to facilitate the ease of use,” and our full aesthetic experience of the knife requires us to hold it and cut with it; we cannot fully determine its design excellence if we do not perform these actions and engage at least some of our proximal senses when we do. # Scrap about knives and keyboards Good design allows the user to feel that they are the author of aesthetically pleasing actions. Good design allows the user to feel that they are the author of aesthetically pleasing actions. A well-designed keyboard enables fluid typing, with keys offering ideal resistance. Users experience themselves causing swift, rhythmic keystrokes. Conversely, a poorly designed keyboard with sticky keys disrupts this flow, diminishing the user's sense of control. A sharp, well-balanced chef's knife facilitates precise, graceful cutting motions, enhancing the user's feeling of skillful authorship. In contrast, a knife with an awkward handle or dull blade leads to clumsy cuts, where the user feels more like they're struggling against the tool rather than skillfully wielding ## ## OLD Roberts on tactile perception and functional beauty CLAUDE TEXT) Roberts argues that it can also be appreciated through haptic touch - our active, exploratory sense of touch that occurs when we manipulate objects with our bodies. On this view, the way an object feels when we grip, lift, rotate or run our hands over it can disclose its functional beauty, i.e. the pleasing fit between its form and function. Roberts illustrates this with the example of a bicycle, whose "lightness and flexibility of the steel frame and the firm bounce of the tyres," plus the "mechanical smoothness" of its parts, can be felt through haptic exploration (Roberts 2022, 57). These properties are ideally configured for the bicycle's function, allowing it to not only "look beautiful, but to ride beautifully, where this is a matter of how it feels to the user" (Roberts 2022, 59). Similarly, Roberts notes that "My new hiking boots, for example, can feel beautiful when I try them on and experience how well they support my ankle and grip the floor with their treads" (Roberts 2022, 59). However, while there is much to be said for Roberts' extension of the functional beauty account, it does not provide a complete account of invisible design. The quote "look beautiful, but to ride beautifully, where this is a matter of how it feels to the user" (Roberts 2022, 59) suggests that Roberts is using the term "feels" in a different sense than in the rest of the text. In most of the paper, Roberts discusses feeling the qualities of objects via haptic touch, which involves actively exploring an object with one's hands. This exploratory action is distinct from actually using the object for its intended function. **Riding the bicycle, on the other hand, is a separate action that produces a different kind of "feeling" - the feeling of what it is like to use the object. This feeling arises from the interaction between the user's body and the bicycle in motion, and is not purely a matter of tactile sensation. The pleasure of riding a well-designed bicycle emerges from factors such as the efficiency of peddling, the smoothness of the ride, and the responsiveness of the handling. These factors are certainly influenced by the bicycle's physical properties, but are not identical to them. Similarly, a well-designed keyboard facilitates efficient, comfortable typing not primarily through its tactile feel, but through factors such as the spacing and travel of the keys. The pleasure of typing on such a keyboard emerges from the typing experience itself, with the keyboard's design "getting out of the way" and allowing the typist to focus on their words. The quote thus hints at a broader conception of functional beauty that goes beyond the appreciation of an object's tactile qualities to encompass the holistic experience of using it. This suggests that invisible design, in its fullest sense, involves not just how an object feels to the touch, but how it feels to engage with it in its intended function.** Moreover, many experiences of invisible design have no significant tactile component at all. A thoughtfully laid-out smartphone app, for instance, is a pleasure to navigate not because of anything one feels, but because the arrangement of elements on the screen is logical, legible, and efficient. The app's design is experienced as an unimpeded flow from intention to action, with no conscious awareness of the visual and cognitive factors that enable it. The same principle applies to non-digital artifacts like a well-composed newspaper front page. Here, the pleasure of use arises from the way the layout facilitates easy scanning and quick comprehension, with no meaningful tactile dimension. Such examples suggest that invisible design is best understood not just in haptic terms, but as a broader experiential gestalt arising from the interaction between an artifact's form and its user's sensory, motor, and cognitive capacities. ### 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 #### Option 1 –Just lots of perceptual experiences - Preliminary note: One possibility is that it is just the perceptions that we have while doing the action which make an interaction aesthetically pleasing or otherwise. - Saito's laundry example, focuses a lot on non-visual perception - Her views are more subtle than just saying this is all there is, but what an aesthetically pleasing action is not her focus - Why won't this do? 1. It doesn't seem hard to think of cases in which we do appreciate our own actions themselves, regardless of what sensations accompany them. 2. I don't see any problem with saying something like 'i felt graceful, ungainly', we'd be happy to say these things as regards things we see, even if there are complexities in precisely what that means - See also Nudds on our ability to perceive actions 3. Accompanying sensations don't seem to work for mental actions like the one Nguyen describes. The alternative would be to disagree with Nguyen as to whether mental actions feel like anything #### Option 2 - 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. - Note we are saying it is impossible appreciate mundane interactions with the world. - Saito's 2017 is details the way in which this is possible MORE MORE - Rather we are differentiating between interactions with objects which can be aesthetically pleasing *without* having to be in a particularly receptive headspace. - It takes effort to mindfully press a lift button, but driving a Porsche will be enjoyable even on an off day. - Same with beauty of objects right? I could appreciate the small things, but plenty of us plenty of the time are only paying attention to the very beautiful things. - 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. ### Aesthetic Effortlessness as a Key Dimension of "Invisible" Design **CLAUDE** PLAN - Montero characterizes aesthetic effortlessness as "efficiency, economy, elegance in completing difficult tasks without visible strain" (paraphrasing p. 183) - Quotes Spencer approvingly on graceful movement being "effected with economy of force" that "makes us feel that...an economy of effort has been achieved" (p. 185) - This seems to capture a central aesthetic dimension of good interaction design - The sense of gracefully economical, unencumbered, masterfully easy action - Interfaces that enable users to achieve challenging tasks with fluid, efficient elegance - Displaying a kind of "superfluity of fitness" (p. 190) in reconciling complex demands - So we might locate a key aspect of aesthetic pleasure in "invisible" design in the proprioceptive experience of effortless fluency it enables - The kinesthetic delight of feeling one's own deft, graceful, optimally efficient action - Performing complex operations with a nimble, unencumbered naturality - Proprioceptively appreciating the aesthetic qualities of one's own masterful, economical engagement ### Distinguishing Effortless Aesthetics from Mere Ease - However, not all easy actions feel aesthetically effortless in Montero's sense - She emphasizes effortlessness is "not just ease but efficiently and elegantly easy, minimizing wasted effort" (paraphrasing p. 186) - Graceful action displays "economy of effort" (p. 185) and "efficiency, economy, elegance" (p. 184), not just simplicity - Aesthetic effortlessness often involves a "superfluity of fitness" in skillfully making challenging things seem easy (p. 190) - Pressing an elevator button is easy but lacks the economical elegance and mastery of difficulty connoted by aesthetic effortlessness - It achieves a simple task simply, rather than accomplishing something challenging with graceful efficiency - No sense of "comparatively little effort" being used to achieve an impressively complex end (p. 185) - Good design makes complex actions feel effortless, not just simple ones - A well-designed app interface doesn't just make it easy to press a button - But gives an overarching sense of fluid, economical, masterful action in navigating its sophisticated functionalities - The aesthetics of invisible design lie in this higher-order effortlessness But in Parsons and Carlson's account, function plays a supporting role to perception rather than taking center stage. They write that "knowledge of [...] function can play a role in our perception of and hence our aesthetic appreciation of that object." This suggests that functional considerations primarily matter insofar as they influence how we see the object. 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). - 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. - ChatGPT Conversation: chat.openai.com/g/g-zui1ru9b6-the-philosophical-gerbil/c/da4033b4-4748-4149-8f21-ffabd1b68c7f - Aesthetic Design accessible vs highfalutin' ### Notes on how to get the paper better - centre it more around Forsey and her stuff about use, - she does talk about use but it would be good to know exactly how she uses it. - I need to read the book better - focus on ease of use, find some quotes put forward our positive account, which draws largely on Montero's work on *Aesthetic Effortlessness* can be adapted It is here where another question emerges: if good invisible design elicits aesthetically pleasing actions from the user, how should we understand aesthetically pleasing if we can appreciate invisible design through aesthetically pleasing interactions with designed objects, how should we understand an aesthetically pleasing interactions # New Paper Structure 18th June 2024 ## Introduction - design seems like something we can aesthetically appreciate - use the structure of the design paper? Completely Or do something like this. - move from perceptual qualities to visual functional beauty to tactile functional beauty to forsey's account. - Andy Hamilton and Possibly Saito go together, for them it is all about perceptual experiences, this maybe makes aesthetic appreciation more similar to ## 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. ### From: the Routledge Companion to Aesthetics. ### from the de Clerk part on Beauty >Using contemporary terminology, it is the claim that beauty is a response-dependent property: a property that things have in virtue of our responses (e.g. judgments) in “ideal circumstances.” What has attracted many authors to this claim is that it seems to provide a middle way between objectivism and subjectivism: beauty is neither a property that exists entirely independently of the mind (objectivism, as found in many classical and medieval works) nor a projection of a subjective state such as preference or pleasure (subjectivism, as found in, for example, Santayana 2003 [1896]). In other words, on the response-dependent view, an aesthetic judgment such as “The Mona Lisa is beautiful” is less objective than a scientific description of the world (e.g. “A positron passes through the cloud chamber”) but more objective than a report on one’s personal feeling (e.g. “I like this”). The problem with the response- dependent view, however, is that there is no (a priori) guarantee that ideal critics will agree in their judgments. In other words, there is no (a priori) guarantee that they will get it right. beauty >As noted, the notion of a sensibility group seems to function as a mere placeholder in the literature for whatever explains differences of opinion between ideal critics. However, in principle, one could refer to a certain kind of sensibility in explicating what an ideal critic is and so attempt to avoid the problem of divergent judgments. For example, one could say that an ideal critic is one who is knowledgeable, impartial, perceptually discriminating and aesthetically sensitive. However, if being aesthetically sensitive means that one cannot be mistaken about beauty, then it is a trivial claim that an object is beautiful if an ideal critic judges it to be so. (The notion of being aesthetically sensitive would be a mere placeholder for whatever enables critics to get it right.) And if being aesthetically sensitive leaves room for being occasionally mistaken, then the possibility of divergent judgments has not been excluded. beauty > ### Things to add to the presentation - thing on Forsey's ideas (or at least get a better grasp on them) –including some stuff on Kant - Object, subjective, response dependent slide. - Why is Beauty in Use an aesthetic experience? - One possibility is to adapt the Functional Beauty account of P and C - The other is maybe that there's something aesthetic about watching an expert work - Back to vision... How we can use the notion of affordances to bring this back to vision - ## Chat GPT summary of the relation between Beauty in Use and a feeling of mastery To clarify how a feeling of mastery relates to skilful coping, let's break it down into steps for a more structured explanation: ### Step 1: Understanding Skilful Coping - **Definition**: Skilful coping refers to the way individuals navigate and interact with their environment in a direct, fluid, and unmediated manner. It's a concept from phenomenology that describes how people engage with tasks and objects around them through practiced skill and intuition rather than through conscious deliberation or explicit reasoning. - **Embodiment**: This process is deeply embodied, meaning it's rooted in the physical and intuitive interaction between the body and its environment. The knowledge required for skilful coping is often tacit, absorbed through experience and practice rather than formal instruction. ### Step 2: The Role of Mastery in Skilful Coping - **Integral, Not Contrasting**: A feeling of mastery isn't a contrasting idea to skilful coping but an integral component of it. Mastery in this context refers to the high degree of skill or proficiency that allows for such effective and seamless interaction. - **Indicator of Proficiency**: The feeling of mastery is both an outcome and an indicator of skilful coping. It reflects the level of comfort, confidence, and competence an individual has attained through practice and experience in a particular domain. ### Step 3: Mastery as Experienced Through Skilful Coping - **Experiential Quality**: The feeling of mastery is experiential—it's how individuals subjectively experience their own proficiency and effectiveness in action. It’s characterized by a sense of fluency, control, and ease with which tasks are performed. - **Enhancement of Interaction**: Mastery enhances the quality of skilful coping by making interactions with the environment more efficient, effective, and satisfying. It elevates the engagement from mere task completion to an experience that can be deeply fulfilling and aesthetically pleasing. ### Step 4: Mastery and Aesthetic Appreciation in Skilful Coping - **Aesthetic Dimension**: The aesthetic appreciation in skilful coping, linked to the beauty in use, arises partly from the feeling of mastery. This appreciation is for the harmony between the user’s actions and the object’s or task’s affordances, the elegance of efficient and effective action, and the pleasure derived from engaging deeply with the world in a skilled manner. - **Contributor to Beauty in Use**: Thus, a feeling of mastery contributes to the beauty in use by enriching the experience of skilful coping with emotional and aesthetic dimensions. It turns routine interactions into moments of engagement that are valued not just for their outcomes but for the experience itself. ## Beauty in Use Skeleton #### by Nick Young and Enrico Terrone ### 1 The Invisible Aesthetics of Design **We can Aesthetically Appreciate Well-Designed Objects** - Here, we want to highlight a particular aspect of design appreciation: Beauty in Use **Seeing Form and Function** - Vision's role in design appreciation - Carlson and Parsons on Functional Beauty: Function's role in aesthetic appreciation - “knowledge of that function can play a role in our perception of and hence our aesthetic appreciation of that object” - Forsey on form and function leading to aesthetic judgement - "Seeing how the form of an object complements and contributes to its function leads to an aesthetic judgement" - We don't think this is the end of the story **Beyond Vision** - Non-Visual Perception: Examples include mobile phone haptics, bluetooth earbuds case and porta potty doors Invisible Design: - Donald A. Norman's view on good and poor design: - “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.” - Apple Butterfly keyboard, as an example of bad design that makes itself noticeable. - **But how can we appreciate invisible design?** ### **2 Beauty in Use** **Beauty in Use** - 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.” - A well designed object can be aesthetically pleasing to use **Note: This applies only to utensils, not machines** - Utensils need continuous human input to function - e.g. Hammers, Paintbrushes, Moka Coffee Pot - Machines don’t - e.g. Clocks, Windmills, Chairs(!) **Nguyen's perspective on aesthetically pleasing actions in real-life scenarios** - Nguyen says: - 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) - We think this is a good place to start. - We are going to look at four options which start from here, mention some reasons why we might hesitate to adopt the first three, then give our preferred account, and then demonstrate some uses for it. - **Option 1: Experiences and Objects** - Realism: aesthetic properties are real properties of objects - Subjectivism: aesthetic properties are subjective responses to objects - But does this work for experiences of acting? - Realism: aesthetic properties are real properties of experiences? - Subjectivism: aesthetic properties are subjective responses to experiences? - Also, this approach would keep the designed object ‘at one remove’ **Option 2: Easy is Beautiful** - Maybe experiencing the ease with which an object allows us to perform its function is a positive aesthetic experience? - (And vice-versa for difficult/negative) - But... seems that some objects can produce easy actions without them being obviously aesthetic pleasing actions. - Pressing the button to call the lift - Opening a door **Option 3: Action and Perception** - Saito (2017) talks about the aesthetics of actions/activities - But this seems to be more focussed on perception - “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.” ### **3 Skilful Coping** **Skilful Coping** - Dreyfus's (Drawing on Heidegger) model of skill acquisition and mastery: - Skilful coping involves immersed, seamless activity driven by intuitive bodily responses to perceived affordances in a situation. (not a quote) - With experience, experts respond to situations intuitively without rules. (also not a quote) - The progression from novice to expert in skilful coping The Experience of Mastery - **Beauty in Use: A well-designed object can be aesthetically pleasing to use** - Well-designed objects elicit skilful, intuitive interactions from the user. - Users feel like they are exercising mastery Examples of Aesthetically Pleasing and Displeasing Design: - Well-designed objects are capable of making one feel like a master: - iPod Click Wheel, a sharp kitchen knife, Fender Stratocaster, a well-laid-out webpage - Poorly Designed Objects do not make users feel like masters: - The Butterfly Keyboard, The Bialetti, The remote control for the TV ### 4. Two Types of Aesthetic Pleasure ### Aesthetic Design: accessible vs highfalutin' When it comes to the Aesthetics of Design there might be different ways in which an object might be aesthetically pleasing to use. #thought - Make it easy for a beginner to become a virtuoso, and thus experiencing aesthetic pleasure when he acts with the object - Be an object which allows for a very high level of virtuosity –an extremely well made fiddle will not be that much easier to master than an ordinary one, but it allows for such mastery that it is also worthy of aesthetic appreciation - An analogy to this second point would be the aesthetic appreciation of an extremely well made piece of accessible popular art vs the aesthetic appreciation of a more highfalutin piece of less accessible art ### **Outstanding Issues** - Addressing objections to skillful coping as aesthetically pleasing - The distinction between Beauty in Use and efficacy: The best user experience may not lead to the best outcomes - **Conclusion** - The three aspects of design aesthetics: Form, Efficacy, Use - The challenge of uniting these aspects in design practice ## Beauty in Use Detailed Plan ### 1. The Aesthetics of Invisible Design - "Beauty and Use" focuses on the invisible aesthetics of design. - This means that well-designed objects can be aesthetically appreciated. - Examples include a beautiful sofa or piece of kitchen equipment which people describe as beautiful or well-designed. - Here, we will discuss a specific aspect of design appreciation named "beauty in use." - We do not claim that "beauty in use" encompasses all aspects of design appreciation. - Often, when people talk about beautiful design they are talk about how an object looks: - Real-life examples here - While philosophers interested in design aesthetics do consider how the function of an object, and how well it performs that function, factors into appreciation, they still consider the appreciation of design to be vision-based. - *Carson and Parsons Quote* - ***Say something about Jane Forsey*** - Our aim here is not to deny that we can aesthetically appreciate good design visually, but to show that vision is not the only way in which design can be appreciated. - First, note that it is plausible to suppose that good design can be appreciated non-visually. - Reviews of products like mobile phones often discuss non-visual aspects such as haptics. - Bluetooth earbud cases are designed to produce a satisfying click sound upon closing. - An example of non-visual aesthetic disapproval comes from Jerry Seinfeld's critique of the lightweight feel of porta-potty doors. - Non-visual appreciation of design is not our focus here. Rather, we are interested in *invisible* design. - “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.” - Good design, according to Norman, seamlessly meets needs without drawing attention. - In contrast, poor design is noticeable due to its inadequacies, exemplified by the Apple butterfly keyboard. - Criticisms of the Apple butterfly keyboard include its shallow key press and unsatisfactory typing experience. - Norman's perspective suggests that while bad design is evident, good design's invisibility poses a challenge to its appreciation. - How can we appreciate good design if it is invisible? Or better, un-perceivable. ### 2. Beauty in Use - 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 - The idea here is that good design is not merely about looks or feel but how it works. - This suggests a starting point for understanding invisible design: - Beauty in Use: a well-designed object should be aesthetically pleasing to use. - Note that what follows only applies to a particular category of artifacts (the following terminology is taken from Lowe): - Utensils require continuous human input to function, unlike machines. - Examples include hammers, paintbrushes, and coffee pots, which do not function without human interaction. - This interaction ceases when the human stops, such as putting down a paintbrush. - Going forward these are the sorts of artifact that we are talking about. - Beauty in use and its aesthetic appeal are not intended to apply to machines, such as clocks or windmills. - In Nguyen we find the 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, actions can be aesthetically appreciated. - This seems like a good starting point for how to understand Beauty in Use: - Aesthetically pleasing design elicits aesthetically pleasing actions. - We will outline four ways in which this way of understanding might be fleshed out. - 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. ### 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 elict, 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*** # 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. ## # The Aesthetics of Design #paper ### 1 The Invisible Aesthetics of Design **We can Aesthetically Appreciate Well-Designed Objects** - Here, we want to highlight a particular aspect of design appreciation: Beauty in Use **Seeing Form and Function** - Vision's role in design appreciation - Carlson and Parsons on Functional Beauty: Function's role in aesthetic appreciation - “knowledge of that function can play a role in our perception of and hence our aesthetic appreciation of that object” - Forsey on form and function leading to aesthetic judgement - "Seeing how the form of an object complements and contributes to its function leads to an aesthetic judgement" - We don't think this is the end of the story **Beyond Vision** - Non-Visual Perception: Examples include mobile phone haptics, bluetooth earbuds case and porta potty doors Invisible Design: - Donald A. Norman's view on good and poor design: - “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.” - Apple Butterfly keyboard, as an example of bad design that makes itself noticeable. - **But how can we appreciate invisible design?** ### **2 Beauty in Use** **Beauty in Use** - 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.” - A well designed object can be aesthetically pleasing to use **Note: This applies only to utensils, not machines** - Utensils need continuous human input to function - e.g. Hammers, Paintbrushes, Moka Coffee Pot - Machines don’t - e.g. Clocks, Windmills, Chairs(!) **Nguyen's perspective on aesthetically pleasing actions in real-life scenarios** - Nguyen says: - 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) - We think this is a good place to start. - We are going to look at four options which start from here, mention some reasons why we might hesitate to adopt the first three, then give our preferred account, and then demonstrate some uses for it. - **Option 1: Experiences and Objects** - Realism: aesthetic properties are real properties of objects - Subjectivism: aesthetic properties are subjective responses to objects - But does this work for experiences of acting? - Realism: aesthetic properties are real properties of experiences? - Subjectivism: aesthetic properties are subjective responses to experiences? - Also, this approach would keep the designed object ‘at one remove’ **Option 2: Easy is Beautiful** - Maybe experiencing the ease with which an object allows us to perform its function is a positive aesthetic experience? - (And vice-versa for difficult/negative) - But... seems that some objects can produce easy actions without them being obviously aesthetic pleasing actions. - Pressing the button to call the lift - Opening a door **Option 3: Action and Perception** - Saito (2017) talks about the aesthetics of actions/activities - But this seems to be more focussed on perception - “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.” ### **3 Skilful Coping** **Skilful Coping** - Dreyfus's (Drawing on Heidegger) model of skill acquisition and mastery: - Skilful coping involves immersed, seamless activity driven by intuitive bodily responses to perceived affordances in a situation. (not a quote) - With experience, experts respond to situations intuitively without rules. (also not a quote) - The progression from novice to expert in skilful coping The Experience of Mastery - **Beauty in Use: A well-designed object can be aesthetically pleasing to use** - Well-designed objects elicit skilful, intuitive interactions from the user. - Users feel like they are exercising mastery Examples of Aesthetically Pleasing and Displeasing Design: - Well-designed objects are capable of making one feel like a master: - iPod Click Wheel, a sharp kitchen knife, Fender Stratocaster, a well-laid-out webpage - Poorly Designed Objects do not make users feel like masters: - The Butterfly Keyboard, The Bialetti, The remote control for the TV ### 4. Two Types of Aesthetic Pleasure ### Aesthetic Design: accessible vs highfalutin' When it comes to the Aesthetics of Design there might be different ways in which an object might be aesthetically pleasing to use. #thought - Make it easy for a beginner to become a virtuoso, and thus experiencing aesthetic pleasure when he acts with the object - Be an object which allows for a very high level of virtuosity –an extremely well made fiddle will not be that much easier to master than an ordinary one, but it allows for such mastery that it is also worthy of aesthetic appreciation - An analogy to this second point would be the aesthetic appreciation of an extremely well made piece of accessible popular art vs the aesthetic appreciation of a more highfalutin piece of less accessible art ### **Outstanding Issues** - Addressing objections to skillful coping as aesthetically pleasing - The distinction between Beauty in Use and efficacy: The best user experience may not lead to the best outcomes - **Conclusion** - The challenge of uniting these aspects in design practice - The three aspects of design aesthetics: Form, Efficacy, Use "Beauty and Use" focuses on the invisible aesthetics of design. - This means that well-designed objects can be aesthetically appreciated. - Examples include a beautiful sofa or piece of kitchen equipment which people describe as beautiful or well-designed. - Here, we will discuss a specific aspect of design appreciation named "beauty in use." - We do not claim that "beauty in use" encompasses all aspects of design appreciation. - Often, when people talk about beautiful design they are talk about how an object looks: - Real-life examples here - While philosophers interested in design aesthetics do consider how the function of an object, and how well it performs that function, factors into appreciation, they still consider the appreciation of design to be vision-based. - For example, on Carson and Parson's notion of *functional beauty* our understanding an object's function can influence our aesthetic appreciation of it. That is, an object is considered beautiful not solely based on its sensory qualities or formal properties, but also on how well it fulfils its intended function. - However, while function plays a role in this account, its role is to affect perceptual experiences of the object: >**“knowledge of [...] function can play a role in our perception of and hence our aesthetic appreciation of that object”** - ***Say something about Jane Forsey*** - Our aim here is not to deny that we can aesthetically appreciate good design visually, but to show that vision is not the only way in which design can be appreciated. - First, note that it is plausible to suppose that good design can be appreciated non-visually. - Reviews of products like mobile phones often discuss non-visual aspects such as haptics. - Bluetooth earbud cases are designed to produce a satisfying click sound upon closing. - An example of non-visual aesthetic disapproval comes from Jerry Seinfeld's critique of the lightweight feel of porta-potty doors. - Non-visual appreciation of design is not our focus here. Rather, we are interested in *invisible* design. - “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.” - Good design, according to Norman, seamlessly meets needs without drawing attention. - In contrast, poor design is noticeable due to its inadequacies, exemplified by the Apple butterfly keyboard. - Criticisms of the Apple butterfly keyboard include its shallow key press and unsatisfactory typing experience. - Norman's perspective suggests that while bad design is evident, good design's invisibility poses a challenge to its appreciation. - How can we appreciate good design if it is invisible? Or better, un-perceivable. - - Utensils require continuous human input to function, unlike machines. - Examples include hammers, paintbrushes, and coffee pots, which do not function without human interaction. - This interaction ceases when the human stops, such as putting down a paintbrush. - Going forward these are the sorts of artifact that we are talking about. - Beauty in use and its aesthetic appeal are not intended to apply to machines, such as clocks or windmills.