The discussion has been related to the product (usability), the production
planning (programming and modelling) and the production process (executing
the program on some device or means). My interest in AC is related to its
potentiality as an Aesthetic Position in these dimensions in the sake of a
system design with sensibility towards individual, social and technical
matters. Aesthetics viewed as the ability for “receptive creativity” opposed
to “repressive productivity”. As H. Marcuse has put it “The basic experience
in this dimension is sensuous rather than conceptual; the aesthetic
perception is essentially intuition, not notion. Receptivity, cognition
through being effected by given objects.” As my interest lays in modelling
and simulation for a participatory systems design, I like the idea of
multiple aesthetics and the orientation towards cultural and individual
roots, as Paul and Jonas mentioned it in several mails.
<p>
I would like to experience more about how differentiation and abstraction is
related to its carrier or container. There is no guided way to the best form
and material of a representation for certain thought processes and
applications, but in retrospective we may say that the representation of
numbers in Arabic notation was superior to the one in Roman, because it
simplified processing. So playing with representations may eventually come
up with some better ones. Abstraction is a thought and action process
supported by operable (executable?)  signs and symbols. But, as Paul has put
it, I also think that our known mathematical means are only one possibility.
We know very few about how we argue and operate in dreams and how this is
related to our conscious and scientific positions.
What advantages do we know from simple abstract sign-systems, do they have
disadvantages?
Can we say, that all thought performances are driven by some need, some
negative quality, that difference and abstraction are means to overcome time
dependent variations in pleasure?
<p>
Is a Reality oriented development Programming, trying to force nature into a
desirable behaviour (like planed hunting, collecting, tool building)? And
following the pleasure principle driven by desire, could it be considered as
being programmed? Then the struggle between programming and being programmed
is very much influenced by our ability to experience dependencies, relations
with all our senses, thus it is a question of aesthetics.
<p>
Is a lever a mathematical representation? Is it more open for non
restricted, non planed applications? Can we experiment with it? Can we
reverse it? Can we do this with a conventional computer program? Using a
mechanical algorithm in reverse direction (inverting cause reaction in our
use, which is not necessarily an attribute of nature) has always been a
source of invention, see lever-catapult, motor-generator ..). Is this
possible with computer programs?
<p>
Using concrete utensils, like a glass, I might well abstract from its
concrete application containing water. Isn’t it more a question of my
sensuality than a question of the object what I see in it? I might see the
glass as a cave, as a breast or as an abstract container.
<p>
Probably it makes little sense to say: this sense is more developed than the
other and this one is better suited for abstraction. Our senses have
developed as they are, historically influenced, and thus has our apparatus
of thinking. Can we say, that today we have more pictures, that we are
living in a pictorial century, because it is so easy to produce pictures,
and that tomorrow we probably live in a concrete century, because it might
be so easy to produce nano-technical concretes? Is there a theory of visual
communication and action? Is there a theory of haptic communication and
action?
<p>
I like Jonas point of view focusing on use quality going beyond usability.
Aesthetics, akin to sensuousness, …..
<p>
I am not very much interested in usability or usable systems. So, the
aesthetic dimension is fascinating for me in its central position, its
mediation between pleasure and performance. Usability is too close to
performance, has too much of a utilitarian character, of purposiveness.
Aesthetic, akin to sensuousness, as “Pertaining to the senses” has much more
potentiality than we have introduced already into existing human-machine
interaction. Today we have new means to integrate tangibility and
visibility, sculpture and painting, and even form, function and behaviour.
New means also to integrate work and play.
<p>
In this sense, I am very much interested how we can further fill the term
“aesthetics” at the workshop.
<p>
Regarding Paul’s post about situating ourselves, I am an engineer, building
tools for pleasure and toil. As such, I use digital computers, pneumatic and
electric devices and circuits to drive or seduce nature for a behaviour
appreciated also by others.