Embed Doc
Copy Link
Readcast
Collections

CommentGo Back

Sensory Aesthetics: Science Informs Aesthetics

Moin Rahman

MotorolaPlantation, FL 33322, USAmoin.rahman@motorola.com

Ira Jhangiani

MotorolaPlantation, FL 33322, USAira.jhangiani@motorola.com

ABSTRACT

Any modern, functional artifact – the car, cellphone,camera, etc. – can be viewed as a microcomputer-drivenmachine embodied in multiple mediums to facilitatehuman-machine interaction. They not only have to delivera function(s) but should also fulfill the affective andaesthetic needs of the user through the many mediums(physical, virtual, aural, etc.) in which they are manifested.A construct called ‘sensory aesthetics’ has been conceivedto investigate the processing of aesthetic informationcontained in a functional artifact by its user. At anoperational level, it postulates that the aesthetic informationis filtered through a set of six concatenated, overlappingfilters (deep structures, culture, ecology, behaviors,affordance and epoch). The filtering approach is rooted inthe social and psychological sciences due to the fact thatculture, context and cognitions are the primary driversthrough which a group’s – and by extension an individual’s– aesthetic sense and needs are shaped. In the practicestandpoint, information gleaned through the sensoryaesthetics approach can be used to make informed decisionsand shape the aesthetics of a product and its interface for agiven context and users. Finally, the sensory aestheticsapproach demonstrates that science and art can partner inconstructive ways in the product design process.

Author Keywords

Sensory aesthetics, art, industrial, product & interfacedesign, culture, emotion, cognition.

INTRODUCTION

Art and science – and, by extension, artists and scientists –are traditionally viewed as tenuously connected (if at all)human endeavors. The alienation of these two types is oftenstereotypically romanticized as the former living andpracticing art in a commune of bohemians; and, the latter,donning white coats while assiduously laboring in a labwith beakers and gauges. And artists purportedly thrive increativity that is fueled by chaos whereas scientistssupposedly survive on empirical rigor and worshipanalytical thought. As the scientific revolution blossomed,the fissure between the sciences and art deepened. It waslamented that calculation and measurement displaced thecultivation and passion engendered by the arts [1]. Thetensions between the two domains where first presented in alandmark lecture (The Rede lecture, 1959) by C.P. Snowunder the title

The Two Cultures

[1] and is still palpable tothis day.One may argue that the notions of artistic and scientificcreativity are convenient social constructions that channelthe emotional and rational pursuits of humanity. Forinstance, it is an accepted fact that architecture informs theaesthetics of a building whereas engineering provides itsstructural solutions. However, this rigid bifurcation is beingblurred of late by new and novel emerging architecturalpractices such as

Informal

[2]. For example, one of themotifs of the

Informal

school is to expose and accentuatehow the [load-bearing] structure counters and routes theforces of gravity – and, in the process, engenders anaesthetic appreciation around the structure itself in the mindof the perceiver.

Machine as Art

The industrialization of art is a fairly recent phenomenonthat came to fore at the dawn of the industrial revolution.This “new art” of “industrial design” came as a response tothe rise of machine-made mass products [3] in order toincrease their appeal by going beyond the essentialrequirements such as functionality and usability. In otherwords, a machine or tool had to artistically express itself through its character and composition to fulfill theemotional needs of the user. Furthermore, from thesemiotic point of view, it had to not only denote functionbut also had to connote symbolic value [4] such as class,status, wealth, austerity, power, etc. The value propositionin the manufacturer’s standpoint was straightforward: tomake the product saleable it had to be made palatable to thehuman senses. In recent years this has been studied underthe rubric of the ‘power of positive affect’ – the perceptionthat “attractive things work better” and the role of “pleasure” in human-product interaction [5, 6].

Humans and their Arts

Humans are said to have an innate predisposition andproclivity to create and consume art. Ethologists point outthat art, as a trait has been selected by evolution, as itprovides “enabling mechanisms for the performance of selectively valuable behaviors such as appropriating thematerial needs of life” (food, tools, shelter, etc.) [7]. Forinstance, it is conjectured that prehistoric man – in adangerous, unknown, unsure and unpredictable world –made sure that his technology (spear, pottery, etc.) worked

by deliberately reinforcing it with emotionally satisfyingspecial [artistic] elaborations and shaping.Cultural anthropologists point out that art was integral toritual whose purpose was to inculcate group identity,cooperation, cohesiveness and cooperation. Furthermore, byimposing culture on nature they sought to control nature. Inearlier times art and ritual were interwoven and wereconsidered a “divine and mysterious visitation.” Thisapproach was made necessary for the group to protect itself from disease, vagaries of nature, and the dangers associatedwith acquisition of food (hunting).

Functional Art

In the preceding section we showed that functional art – theart incorporated into prehistoric technology (weapons,tools, etc.) – is almost as old as our species (homo sapiens).And it should be emphasized that we distinguish functionalart – the art of technology, machines, etc. – from therepresentational (art, sculpture, etc.) and performance arts(drama, music, poetry, etc.).

Industrialized Art

The industrialized art of today is a natural and logicalextension of the functional art that began in prehistorictimes. Obviously, there is one crucial difference: In earliertimes, the consumer was his own designer & artist(designer-artist-consumer); or, as civilization advanced,they were at least in close proximity (e.g., the consumerdirectly interacted with the craftsperson, and thus,influenced the style, form and functional aspects of theproduct). However, these earlier models have beensupplanted with the industrialization of technology, chieflycharacterized by mass production and an increasedcomplexity of the technology itself. This has divorced theconsumer from his designer-artist self and has distanced theprofessional designer-artist from the ultimate end-user.Although we use the term “industrialized art” it is notrestricted to the machines of the industrial age. It alsoincludes microcomputer based machines such asappliances, tools and toys – and their virtual interfaces.The ‘divorce’ and ‘distancing’ of designer from consumeris ameliorated by providing a limited ability to customize aproduct or its interface through skins and themes. However,this is not true with all products, and even when providedthey are mostly superficial and don’t provide the structurallatitude to reconfigure the aesthetics at a deeper level.Finally, a word on terminology. For the sake of consistency, we will use the term “product design” to referto all functional artifacts that are used to accomplish aparticular goal such as transport, communicate, entertain,cook, etc. And, as one might expect, almost all of thesemodern day, functional artifacts are either driven ormanaged (or both) by microcomputers.

RECONNECTIONS

In this paper, we explore means by which the professionaldesigner can be reconnected to the end user, particularly inthe realm of aesthetics. The intent here is to focus on theabstract qualities of a product in the sensorial point of viewand not on its tangible issues such as features, function orusability. As a matter of fact, the latter has an establishedtradition in industry where methods such as contextualinquiry, usability testing, etc., are used to inform thetangibles in product design and development. However,our literature review has shown no formal theory, practiceor tradition exists to systematically inform the aesthetics of a product or its interface. We hope to fill this gap – at least,begin a line of inquiry – on a theoretical basis based on theresearch we have done in the social, psychological andhuman factors sciences.To get started, we would like to begin with fundamentals,by defining aesthetics.

AESTHETICS

The ancient Greeks used the term “aesthetic” to refer tosensation and feelings – good or bad, beautiful or ugly [8].However, modern usage has somewhat corrupted theoriginal connotation and now it is used as a synonym for“beautiful.”Our objective is to use the word aesthetic in its originalsense. And to emphasis the original meaning and contrast itfrom modern day usage we have coined the term “sensoryaesthetic.” That is, the sensory feelings (good or bad)evoked by the aesthetics (beautiful or ugly) of a product orinterface.Next, we describe and define sensory aesthetics from whatis known from the affective and psychological sciences.

Sensory Aesthetics

The common notion of product aesthetics typically links itwith the visual medium through form, color, patterns, visualsyntax, etc. This is understandable given product design’sroots in the visual arts. However, many artifacts stimulateone or more senses – tactile, olfactory, auditory and visual –as part of their function (e.g., ring tone on a cellphone) ordo it as an incidental byproduct of their function (e.g., thecrackle of a rifle shot and the odor of gunpowder, whichfollows that; or in the case of a sports car, the soundsproduced by its internal combustion engine, the input itprovides to the equilibrioception [sense of linearacceleration] of the driver). We consider these unimodal ormultimodal stimulations (visual and non-visual) crucialbecause it is known that the body with its total sensingapparatus assesses the environmental conditions in multiplemodalities on a cathectic basis; that is, intuitive, emotional,uninformed judgment, feel good or feel bad, adumbration,making benefit or loss assessments, adjusting andreadjusting [9].Formally, we define sensory aesthetics as a first orderorientation response that is automatic, fast, instinctive,

3nonconscious, and effortless to the aesthetics of the stimulileading to an instant and implicit conclusion on its aestheticvalence. In the sensory standpoint, it is analogous to theconcept of

direct perception

[10], in the physicalenvironment, where an organism gleans meaning inherentin its environment without any explicit mental calculation.In the social domain (human-human interaction), its akin to‘thin slicing’ [11] – i.e., reliably gleaning informationthrough “instantaneous impressions” about a person’sidentity, disposition and intent, with a brief exposure. Inother words, valid conclusions can be drawn from fleetingimpressions and minimal information (thin slices) withoutrequiring a vast cornucopia of information (large slice) orrigorous analysis.Likewise, we argue that the aesthetics of a product can bereliably sensed through thin slicing and it neither requiresinferential reasoning nor is it necessary that it be mediatedby language. The concept of sensory aesthetics can be bestappreciated in the words of Le Corbusier [12] who made hisobservations concerning the empathetic ideals of architecture (here we treat the building as a product servinga certain function): “…the disposition of elements in abuilding should be such a way that the sight of them affectsus immediately by their delicacy or their brutality, their riotor their serenity, their indifference or their interest.” At asubjective level, it can be said that the sensory aestheticexperience engenders an “esthetic emotion” [13], which issaid to arise before any experience or knowledge of theobject can be accumulated.In a human information processing standpoint, the sensoryaesthetic experience should be viewed as a graduallychanging continuum, with the bulk of the processingoccurring at the visceral level (which is automatic, fast,parallel and affective processing) and diminishing as oneascends to the higher cortical centers (where slow,deliberate, serial and rational cognition occurs) of the brain.The opposite of

sensory aesthetic

is the

cogitated aesthetic

where the affective reaction of a product’s aesthetics isgenerated through deliberate analysis (intellectualizationand rationalization). Some examples of the cogitatedaesthetic would be as follows: (1) a consumer marvelingand reflecting the conncinity, symmetry, craftsmanship orfinish in a product’s form factor (e.g., sports car); or theuser recalling the elegance with which an interfacepresented information and guided him towards successfullyaccomplishing his goal (e.g., online ticket reservationsystem). We will not discuss the cogitated aesthetic furtheras it is beyond the scope of this paper.We have adapted Don Norman’s three-level processingmodel [5] to visually describe and contrast the sensory andcogitated aesthetics, respectively (Figure 1).

Sensory AestheticBulk of the processingoccurs at the visceral level,(denoted by the width of theleft bar.)Cogitated AestheticBulk of the processingoccurs at the reflectivelevel, (denoted by the widthof the right bar.)

Figure 1. Sensory vs. Cogitated Aesthetic: viewed under therubric of Don Norman’s three-level [user] processing of design.

In design theory, Norman’s design framework has beeninterpreted as having three rigid levels [14], which, in turn,evoke three very different cognitive reactions: (1) aestheticimpression (visceral level cognition:attractive\unattractive); (2) semantic interpretation(behavioral level cognition: functional\use); and (3)symbolic association (reflective level cognition:personal/social significance). However, our definition of sensory aesthetic – informed by the fact that affect precedescognition, i.e., “preferences need no inferences” [15] – doesnot adhere to the rigid, three level model. Because wehypothesize that the user can non-consciously sense theaffective component present at all three levels (visceral,behavioral and reflective) at once, to varying [diminishing]degrees without requiring deliberate cognition. Forexample, a certain watch can be perceived as having ‘high’status merely on first impressions because it simply ‘feels’elegant and sophisticated. This precludes any formalcognition such as deliberate analysis of material, finish or[discretionary] branding information [8].

DISCOVERING THE SENSORY AESTHETIC

The idea of universal design – as applied to form (not to beconfused with design for people with disabilities) – hasreceived its fair share of criticism [16]. This is becauseuniversal design seeks a language of product formcompatible with any technology, for any culture at anytime. The aesthetic here is valorized and commoditizedbecause of its enforced uniformity, which neither takes intoaccount individual tastes nor cultural norms of a people.Furthermore, the intense competition prevailing in themarketplace, results in asymmetric attention [rightfully so]being paid, to non-aesthetic attributes of a product, such asfunctionality, features, usability, price, etc., at the cost of aesthetics. Simply because aesthetics even if perceived as

of 00

Sensory Aesthetics Rahman and Jhangiani Public Copy

A psycho-social approach to inform the aesthetics development during product design.

819 Reads

Info and Rating

Category:	School Work
Rating:
Upload Date:	01/10/2009
Copyright:	Attribution Non-commercial
Tags:	culture Design Psychology aesthetics industrial design product design Culture-General-Art culture Design Psychology aesthetics industrial design product design Culture-General-Art (fewer)