- [x] # SUBMITTED. 17 Nov 2024 at 10:41:31 🆔 WTXPYL ✅ 2025-01-16 Status here: https://journals.publishing.umich.edu/phimp/dashboard/ # Notes on Borgmann in [[the Aesthetics]] and Design Book ## Assessment of the Criticism The criticism is fair and accurately identifies a significant aspect of [[the author]]'s approach in this text. [[The author]] does indeed develop Borgmann's ideas in interesting ways, but there is a noticeable shift in focus from the specifics of aesthetically [[pleasing interactions]] with objects to broader considerations of human needs, social aspects, and the overall role of design in society. ## Reasons Supporting the Criticism 1. Expansion of Borgmann's Concept * [[The author]] takes Borgmann's ideas about engagement with objects and expands them to encompass a wider range of design considerations * This expansion, while valuable for [[the author]]'s overall argument, does move away from a detailed exploration of aesthetic interactions 2. Focus on "Design Apology" * [[The author]]'s emphasis on the "design apology" concept shifts the discussion towards broader philosophical and social considerations * This focus on the larger purpose and impact of design sometimes overshadows the more [[specific aspects]] of aesthetic interactions 3. Integration with Other [[Philosophical Perspectives]] * [[The author]] synthesizes ideas from various philosophers and designers, which broadens the scope of the discussion * While this synthesis is intellectually rich, it can dilute the focus on [[the aesthetics]] of object interactions 4. Emphasis on Human Needs and Social Impact * [[The author]] consistently relates design to fulfilling human needs and improving society * This emphasis, while important, sometimes comes at the expense of a more detailed examination of aesthetic interactions ## Implications of [[the Author]]'s Approach 1. Holistic View of Design * [[The author]]'s broader focus provides a more comprehensive understanding of design's role in society * [[This approach]] aligns with contemporary design theory that considers the wider impact of design decisions 2. Potential Loss of Depth in Aesthetic Analysis * The reduced focus on specific aesthetic interactions may limit the text's contribution to understanding the nuances of how objects can be aesthetically pleasing in use 3. Relevance to Design Practice * The author's approach may be more directly applicable to design practitioners who need to consider broader implications of their work * However, it might be less useful for those specifically interested in improving the aesthetic qualities of object interactions ## Conclusion The criticism is fair and accurately identifies a characteristic of the author's approach. While the author does develop Borgmann's ideas in interesting and valuable ways, there is indeed less focus on the specific aesthetics of object interactions than one might expect given the starting point of Borgmann's concept of engagement. The author's choice to emphasize broader aspects of design, including human needs and social impacts, reflects a particular philosophical stance on the nature and purpose of design. This approach has both strengths and limitations, depending on the reader's interests and the intended application of the ideas presented. Beauty in Use Plan 19th June 2024 Beauty in Use and Forsey's Theory of Design Appreciation # Beauty in Use ## Brainstorms Beauty in Use –Plans, Scraps, and Brainstorms Beauty in Use Plan 19th June 2024 [[]] ## Notes ## Disinterestedness in Beauty of Use - Would an example of disinterested use be scrolling through your library without purpose? - See LLM notes below ### Challenges to Traditional Disinterestedness - Beauty in use challenges Forsey's notion of disinterested judgment derived from Kant - Active engagement with an object may involve interested pleasure in its functionality - The question arises whether true disinterestedness is possible in interactive aesthetic experiences ### Reconstructing Disinterestedness in Use - A new understanding of disinterestedness may emerge in the context of beauty in use - Users might achieve a form of disinterested appreciation through familiarity and mastery - This reconstructed disinterestedness would involve appreciating the object's qualities beyond immediate utility ### Oscillation Between Interest and Disinterest - Beauty in use may involve an oscillation between interested engagement and disinterested appreciation - Users might shift between focused task completion and reflective aesthetic consideration - This dynamic interplay could enrich the overall aesthetic experience of interactive design ## LLM Text ### Claude: Roberts on tactile perception and functional beauty 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 classic 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. 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. Similarly, a well-designed kitchen knife is a pleasure to use not just because of how it feels in the hand, but because the angle of the blade and the shape of the handle conspire to make cutting effortless and precise. Again, appreciation of the design arises through use, with tactile qualities playing a secondary role. In fact, 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. ## 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 pedaling 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 pedaling 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. ## Resources ### Readwise Aesthetic Effortlessness ### Literature Notes Aesthetic Effortlessness ## Quotes >"Our judgement of the perfection of an object, by contrast, is that it is a good thing of its kind: it involves empirical reason instead of practical reason, and is disinterested in the way that all cognitive judgements are. Th at is, we can make a cognitive judgement that an object fulfi lls its purpose without wanting the thing for ourselves, or having any interest in its actual good for us. Th e purpose of an object is the realization of a given function or concept that precedes its existence; it needn’t be a function that we want it to perform." - Forsey on disinterested appreciation - Forsey on using the object >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. (p. 208) ## Resources # Odds and Sods