Design, technology and experience An Aesthetic Perspective Vesa Vihanninjoki Ph.D. Candidate Discipline of Aesthetics University of Helsinki Vesa Vihanninjoki 28.4.2019

What is “Aesthetics”? Two perspectives on aesthetics Chronologically Traditionally: philosophy of art and beauty Nowadays: also environmental issues and everyday life Thematically The “aesthetic domain”: specific aesthetic values and meanings “Science of sensory cognition” and “the distribution of the sensible”: “how we make sense of what we sense” Vesa Vihanninjoki 28.4.2019

What is the “essence” of a table? Sources: furniturestorelosangeles.com & shacbiga.com Vesa Vihanninjoki 28.4.2019

What is the “essence” of a Table? What makes an artifact a table? Why do we regard an artifact as a table? When is the universal concept of “table” applicable to a particular instance of an artifact? When do we experience (that is, perceive and understand) an artifact as a table, and not as something else? What kind of features are we dealing with here? Formal/spatial, physical/material, social/cultural Vesa Vihanninjoki 28.4.2019

artifacts and their uses experienced Our experience of reality in general is essentially colored or even defined by the possible uses that we project onto artifacts An artifact “is” a table because it makes possible (that is, affords) certain particular uses that we associate with tables (and not some other uses) “The meaning of an artifact is its use in the life-form.” Cf. “The meaning of a word is its use in the language.” (Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, 1953, § 43.) At the level of everyday life and experience, “being” (a table) and “being regarded as” (a table) converge and mean the same thing Vesa Vihanninjoki 28.4.2019

The “foundational uses” of a Table What, then, are the most important uses of a table? This is an empirical, not conceptual/philosophical question! Which particular uses separate tables from, say, chairs? Are there any potential similarities and convergences or mismatches and downright conflicts between such “foundational uses”? Vesa Vihanninjoki 28.4.2019

The “foundational uses” of a Table Source: bijaninteriors.ca Vesa Vihanninjoki 28.4.2019

The “foundational uses” of a Table Source: architectureartdesigns.com Vesa Vihanninjoki 28.4.2019

The “foundational uses” of a Table Source: sitandsleep.co.uk Vesa Vihanninjoki 28.4.2019

About the functions of an artifact How, exactly, do we perceive and grasp what (use) is the artifact made for? What kind of cues may the designer provide? Different categories of functions: Primary/practical functions (material utility) Secondary/semiotic functions (social-cultural utility) Denotative functions: what (use) is the artifact made for? Connotative functions: what (lifestyle) does the artifact stand for? How about artifacts whose primary (or “parallel”) function is to provide certain experiences? (E.g. cars, clothes, etc.) Vesa Vihanninjoki 28.4.2019

Designed functions, afforded uses What other uses (than the intended) does the artifact make possible? A designed function vs. an afforded use “Function” is something pre-defined, whereas “use” is not An artifact designed primarily for a single use may de facto afford numerous unanticipated uses But how do we perceive and grasp such unintended uses, if there are no cues provided by the designer available? Who, exactly, is the “we” that we are dealing with here? Vesa Vihanninjoki 28.4.2019

Designed functions, afforded uses Source: Masha Climbing on Youtube.com Vesa Vihanninjoki 28.4.2019

Socio-cultural and dynamic experience We experience our environment, its entities (natural and artificial) and the afforded uses according to our skills and abilities that are: Socio-culturally defined in that they belong to a historical life-form constituted by various norms and expectations Dynamic in that we can gain new ones and lose existing ones Designed uses (functions) comprise only a special case of all the recognized uses afforded by various artifacts in our everyday environments! Vesa Vihanninjoki 28.4.2019

Whose uses, whose values? What is the relation between designed and actual uses? Which dimension has “more weight”? What is, exactly, the relation between the experience of the designer and that of the end-user? This a crucial question concerning the self-understanding of a design-discipline, or of a particular designer (willingness to listen, learn and co-operate) Experience also involves aesthetic values and evaluation We tend to prefer such artifacts that match our skills and abilities Whose values are we dealing with when talking about “aesthetics of design” – especially if designed uses comprise only a “special case” of all uses? Vesa Vihanninjoki 28.4.2019

What does a table really do? Sources: furniturestorelosangeles.com & shacbiga.com Vesa Vihanninjoki 28.4.2019

What does a table really do? Primary/practical functions (material utility) Secondary/semiotic functions (social-cultural utility) Denotative functions: what (use) is the artifact made for? Connotative functions: what (lifestyle) does the artifact stand for? Mediation/constitutive “functions” How does the artifact “mediate” the relationships between the user and the surrounding reality? How does the artifact actively shape social and cultural practices (by maintaining or changing them)? What kind of experiences the artifact enables and enhances? Vesa Vihanninjoki 28.4.2019

What does a table really do? What, exactly, is this “mediation” and what is its relevance from a design point of view? A short video from Peter-Paul Verbeek, one of the developers of the mediation theory Vesa Vihanninjoki 28.4.2019

What does a table really do? A round table is associated with different style of communal eating than a rectangular one. A round table has no “head” and provides everyone sitting around it with the same status, while a rectangular table is associated with a hierarchical order. [...] In fulfilling their functions, artifacts do more than function – they shape a relation between human beings and their world. The way in which a table organizes the relations between guests can only be described as a means for an end [that is, as a intended function] when the host deliberately chooses an “egalitarian” or “authoritarian” table in expressing a preference for a particular meal culture. [...] [Such] mediation is not a product’s function, but rather a byproduct of its functionality. (Verbeek, What Things Do, 2005, pp. 207–8.) Vesa Vihanninjoki 28.4.2019

Experiencing uses through uses There is a fundamental reciprocity between the user’s experience and the particular uses that the artifact affords The possible uses of an artifact can be understood only from the viewpoint of a user’s experience The very same experience can be influenced or altogether changed by the possible uses provided by the artifact Through its affordances, an artifact enhances certain skills and abilities and thus has an active role in shaping the experience! In short: an artifact is always experienced, but also shaping the experience itself! Vesa Vihanninjoki 28.4.2019

Change in interface, change in experience Sources: gsmarena.com & techtarget.com Vesa Vihanninjoki 28.4.2019

Change in interface, change in experience Source: wikimedia.com Vesa Vihanninjoki 28.4.2019

Change in interface, change in experience Source: signmedia.ca Vesa Vihanninjoki 28.4.2019