# still to do - [x] exam shit ✅ 2024-09-19 - [x] exam titles ✅ 2024-09-19 # Notes #### Not Mere Aestheticisation >Forsey’s theory of design is a more complex philosophical endeavor than a mere argument in favor of acknowledging design by philosophical aesthetics. There is no doubt that design is a valid subject of aesthetic appraisal, but Forsey wants to define how this appraisal is specifi- cally aesthetic for design, without falling into [[the trap]] of mere aestheticization. - Good to make [[this distinction]], perhaps even as a way into this. - Yeah, even introduce the class with this and make it as a comparison between her account and [[functional beauty]] #### So what is Forsey's Theory? ##### 1. [[The distinction between]] free and [[dependent beauty]] - [[Free beauty]]: appreciating an object's formal qualities without reference to a defining concept - [[Dependent beauty]]: judging an object's perfection in light of a defining concept - Forsey applies this to design by treating most [[design appreciation]] as a form of [[dependent beauty]] - Design objects judged as more or less perfect examples of particular functional kinds ##### 2. Adherent beauty as a species of [[dependent beauty]] - Adherent beauty: a kind of [[dependent beauty]] where objects are judged against their intended purposes - Kant used examples like judging a building as a beautiful church or palace - Forsey extends this to design objects, which are properly appreciated in terms of functional purposiveness >, Forsey expands the applicability of the judgment of beauty to functional objects. For this purpose, she reaches to the Kantian theory of “[[Dependent Beauty]]” (pulchritudo adhearens) since she endorses the view that the aesthetic ”constitutes a mental act rather than a property of objects […] or a form of physical pleasure.” (Forsey, 2013, p. 73) This notion allows Forsey to describe how the recognition of purpose (functionality) influences the assessment of the [[aesthetic dimension]] of design. To be specific, she proposes an aesthetics of design based on evaluating an object „because of the perfection in the way it fulfills its purpose." >[…] the [[free play]] of the faculties when faced with a work of craft will consider the contin- gency of the way that object fulfills its function by means of the individual skill at creating it from a given raw material. With judgements of design, we do not attend to this aspect of [[the object]]: we feel no individual hand at work when we appraise a laptop computer or a car, and we do not judge it according to how a single individual has manipulated some raw material to produce it. (Forsey, 2013, p. 180) ##### 3. Muteness/Lack of Expression ###### The four characteristics of designed objects From the Favara-Kurkowski paper: >The four “intuitive characteristics” Forsey derives are functionality, immanence, muteness, and mass-presence. To be more specific, objects have to satisfy a practical purpose to be con- sidered objects of use; therefore, they are functional. Furthermore, we don’t expect a design object to „achieve the transcendence of art” (Forsey, 2013, p. 28). 1. Functionality - Design objects serve practical purposes and are objects of use 2. Immanence - Design objects exist within the context of ordinary, everyday life - They do not "achieve the transcendence of art" or deal with metaphysical issues 3. Muteness - Design objects lack the expressive content of art objects - The designer does not aim to communicate profound artistic meaning through them 4. Mass-presence - Design objects are mass-produced through technological means - This contrasts with unique hand-crafted objects >As Forsey intends it in critically appraising design in our daily life, the designer’s role and expressiveness are marginal. She writes: With design, we merely judge the relative perfection of the thing in fulfilling its function, absent any knowledge of—or often any interest in—who actually did the work. (Forsey, 2013, p. 180) ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01hvjzqxsce30ypgcyn8eaxhba)) ###### A lack of expressiveness >As Forsey intends it in critically appraising design in our daily life, the designer’s role and expressiveness are marginal. She writes: With design, we merely judge the relative perfection of the thing in fulfilling its function, absent any knowledge of—or often any interest in—who actually did the work. (Forsey, 2013, p. 180) ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01hvjzqxsce30ypgcyn8eaxhba)) #### Criticisms and Responses ##### 1. The problem of impractical objects - Jiménez Sánchez argues that Forsey's account marginalizes design objects that deliberately fail to fulfill their proper function - She uses Katerina Kamprani's "Uncomfortable Chair 3" as an example of an impractical object that challenges Forsey's emphasis on proper function - The criticism suggests Jane Forsey's account is too narrow to accommodate conceptual objects that subvert functional expectations Link to uncomfortable objects https://www.theuncomfortable.com/ ##### Reply to the criticism - The text argues that Forsey's Kantian notion of dependent beauty can still accommodate impractical objects - It notes that dependent beauty was originally applied by Kant to non-functional art objects as well - The text contends that for Forsey, "function specifically affects this impure aesthetic judgment, not that only function affects it" - This suggests Forsey's account is more flexible than the criticism assumes and can consider non-functional aesthetic properties - Quote: >I want to argue that appealing to Kant’s theory of beauty does not exclude the appreciation of impractical objects. Before Forsey cast out Dependent Beauty specifically for design objects, this notion was already applied to non-practically functional objects. As Robert Stecker points out, „Kant suggests that a proper understanding of the appreciation of most art is not captured by the notion of a pure judgment of taste” (Stecker, 1987, p. 89) but impure ones, the object of which is always Dependent Beauty. What Forsey shows is how the function specifically affects this impure aesthetic judgment, not that only function affects it. For example, we could defend our aesthetic appraisal of Uncomfortable Chair 3 by pointing to its formal features alone. This justification would make us even more faithful to the original Kantian theory ** > [!Question] > Is there really such a strong split between design appreciation and art appreciation? ##### 2. The problem of a single function - Jiménez Sánchez claims that Forsey's account can't adequately judge functionally complex objects that go beyond a single purpose - She presents Tobias Wong's "This is a Lamp", which combines a chair and a light, as an example of an object with "accidental functions" beyond its proper function - The criticism implies Forsey's emphasis on proper function is too limiting to handle multi-functional objects ##### Reply to the criticism - The text contends that Forsey defines proper function in terms of the designer's intent rather than as an essential property of the object - This allows for appreciating functionally innovative objects that fulfill multiple intended functions - The text also notes that Forsey's Kantian framework enables judging unprecedented objects as "free beauties" apart from any particular function - Alternatively, it can separately assess an object's different "dependent beauty" functions - This suggests Forsey's account has resources for appreciating multi-functional objects that the criticism overlooks - When first encountering an unprecedented multi-functional object like "This is a Lamp," Forsey's Kantian theory allows us to judge it as a "Free Beauty" specimen without a definite concept - Alternatively, we can judge it as "Dependent Beautiful" separately for each of its intended functions, such as sitting and lighting - As we become familiar with the object and it potentially becomes a recognized type, we develop a concept of it as a unified multi-functional object - Forsey acknowledges that the form-function relationship is complex, and her theory emphasizes that the various ways an object fulfills its function(s) should be part of our aesthetic appraisal > [!Question] > There's something interesting about about whether something can look well designed as one function and badly designed as another ##### 3. The problem of exclusivity - Jiménez Sánchez claims Forsey's account wrongly excludes expressive, non-functional properties from aesthetic appreciation of design - The criticism suggests Forsey's focus on functionality is too narrow and rigid ##### Reply to the criticism - The text argues that Forsey's "muteness" criterion, which downplays expressive properties, is a descriptive generalization rather than an essential property design objects must have - It contends this criterion is part of a working definition to identify what is aesthetically unique to design, not an absolute requirement - The text emphasizes that Forsey acknowledges design can be expressive, just that it can't only be expressive - It also argues Jiménez Sánchez's definition of design beauty is too broad to have explanatory power - While Forsey focuses on "anonymous" functional design, her Kantian theory of dependent beauty is not intrinsically limited to that - The text states: "The beauty that is particular to design (and craft) is Dependent Beauty as we appraise the object because of the perfection in the way it fulfills its purpose, but it is not the only genus of beauty that we can apply to design." - This suggests Forsey's account can consider expressive beauty in design even if it's not her primary focus #### Other things ###### Function: Intention vs Evolution - Forsey relies on an intention-based account of function, what hangs on this? ##### Key ideas in the quote - Forsey holds that in appreciating common design objects, the designer's individual expressive intent is a marginal factor - When evaluating ordinary designed objects like computers or cars, we focus on their functionality - We do not typically aim to discern traces of the designer's personal expression or craftsmanship as we would for art or craft objects ##### Relation to Forsey's overall argument - This point further sharpens the contrast Forsey draws between proper aesthetic appreciation of design vs. art - For art objects, the artist's individual expressive vision is a primary consideration - But Forsey argues this is not the case for the design objects we commonly encounter - This supports her view that design merits a separate aesthetic theory not beholden to concepts from art theory - By highlighting another key difference between design and art appreciation, Forsey further motivates the need for an independent aesthetic approach to design - This represents another step in building her case for a domain-specific theory of design aesthetics # In Class Notes - danielle wants to do the exam before august. - Next class: Whether functional beauty can deal with the uncmofortable and ligjht up chair examples?