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

2. 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

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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

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

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

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

10. 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

11. 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

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

13. 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

14. 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

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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

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

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

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