Advertisement

AI & SOCIETY

, Volume 25, Issue 1, pp 27–33 | Cite as

The beauty of the beast: the matter of meaning in digitalization

  • Anna Croon Fors
Original Article

Abstract

Digitalization reveals the world in new varieties and forms. This power to unveil not only transforms human outreach and actions, but also changes our conceptions; about whom we are, about our uses and about human horizons for sense-making. In this paper, I explore experience design and the aesthetic turn in contemporary research in human–computer interaction and interaction design. This rather recent interest in aesthetic experience is in my view a move away from a view of digitalization as instances of objects aligned in networks, with certain features, qualities and properties, towards an understanding of digitalization as a relation to the world, to itself, and to what it means to be human (e.g. Technology and the character of contemporary life. A philosophical inquiry. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1984, Holding on to reality. The nature of information at the turn of the millennium. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1999; Questioning technology. Routledge, New York, 1999; The question concerning technology and other essays. Harper and Row, New York, 1977; Technology and the lifeworld, from garden to earth. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 1990). As such my attempt in this text is to outline a conceptual account concerning what it might mean to designate digitalization as experienced rather than as what we traditionally think of it—as a cause of what we perceive. The paper is based on some previous work suggesting that a focus on the beauty of digitalization (i.e. the beast) entails the possibility to investigate ambiguous meanings of digitalization, meanings that are intrinsic to digitalization but have so far received little or no attention. My suggestion is that there are aesthetic and/or sublime dimensions inherent in digitalization that involves the realization of meaning that are becoming increasingly important in both use and design of digital materials. Hence, the particular focus on aesthetics as implied by the title of this text refers to a pervasive quality harbouring meaning that through a phenomenological lens could be regarded as the material basis of digitalization. The paper concludes that it is crucial to conduct more thorough studies of the relationship between aesthetics and digitalization if we are truly interested in exploring the potential of digitalization in our lives.

Keywords

Aesthetic Experience Contemporary Research Significant Configuration Aesthetic Dimension Expressive Form 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Bakardijeva-Rizova M (2000) The internet in everyday life: computer networking from the standpoint of the domestic user, PhD Thesis, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, Canada: School of CommunicationGoogle Scholar
  2. Bakhtin M (1990) Art and answerability: early philosophical essays. University of Texas Press, AustinGoogle Scholar
  3. Benedikt M (1991) Cyberspace—first steps. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  4. Boland R (1987) The in-formation of information systems. In: Boland R, Hirscheim R (eds) Critical issues in information systems research. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  5. Borgmann A (1984) Technology and the character of contemporary life. a philosophical inquiry. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  6. Borgmann A (1999) Holding on to reality. The nature of information at the turn of the millennium. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  7. Croon Fors A (2006) Being-with information technology: critical explorations beyond use and design. PhD Thesis, Umeå University, Sweden: Department of InformaticsGoogle Scholar
  8. Csikzentmihaly M, Rochberg-Halton E (1981) The meaning of things. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  9. Dewey J (1934) Art as experience. Perigee Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Dourish P (2001) Where the action is. The foundations of embodied interaction. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  11. Ess C (1999) Cultural attitudes toward technology and communication: new directions of research in computer-mediated communication. AI Soc 13:329–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fällman D (2003) In romance with the materials of mobile interaction. A phenomenological approach to the design of mobile information technology, PhD Thesis, Umeå University, Sweden: Department of InformaticsGoogle Scholar
  13. Feenberg A (1995) Alternative technology. The technical turn in philosophy and social theory. London, UK, RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  14. Feenberg A (1999) Questioning technology. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Feenberg A (2005) Heidegger and Marcuse: the catastrophe and redemption of history. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Hassenzahl M, Tractinsky N (2006) User experience: a research agenda. Behav Inf Technol 25(2):91–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Heidegger M (1971) Poetry, language and thought. Harper & Row, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Heidegger M (1977) The question concerning technology and other essays. Harper and Row, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Heim M (1987) Electric language. A philosophical study of word processing. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  20. Husserl E (1931) Ideas: general introduction to pure phenomenology. George Allen and Unwin, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. Ihde D (1990) Technology and the lifeworld, from garden to earth. Indiana University Press, BloomingtonGoogle Scholar
  22. Ihde D (2008) Aging: I don’t want to be a cyborg! Phenomenol Cogn Sci 7:397–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kazmierczak E (2003) Design as meaning making: from making things to the design of thinking. Des Issues 29(2):45–59MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. Laurel B (1993) Computers as theatre. Addison-Wesley, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  25. McCarthy J, Wright P (2004) Technology as experience. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  26. Norman D (2004) Emotional design: why we love (or hate) everyday things. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Nye D (1994) American technological sublime. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  28. Nye D (2006) Technology matters. Questions to live with. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  29. Oudshoorn N, Pinch T (2005) How users matters. The co-construction of users and technology. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  30. Petersen MG, Iversen OS, Krogh PG, Ludvigsen M (2004) Aesthetic interaction—a pragmatist’s aesthetics of interactive systems. In: Proceedings of the 5th ACM conference on designing interactive systems processes, practices, methods and techniques, pp 269–276Google Scholar
  31. Ramirez R (1991) The beauty of social organizations. ACCEDO, MunichGoogle Scholar
  32. Rasmussen LB (2007) From human-centred to human-context centred approach: looking back over ‘the hills’, what has been gained and lost? AI Soc 21(4):471–495Google Scholar
  33. Redström J (2001) Designing everyday computational things, PhD Thesis, Göteborg University, Sweden: Department of InformaticsGoogle Scholar
  34. Redström J (2006) Towards user design? On the shift from object to user as the subject of design. Des Stud 27:123–139Google Scholar
  35. Redström J (2008) RE: definitions of use. Des Stud 29:410–423Google Scholar
  36. Schutz A (1975) On phenomenology and social relations. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  37. Sengers P, Gaver B (2006) Staying open to interpretation. Engaging multiple meanings in design and evaluation. Des Interact Sys (DIS), June 26–28Google Scholar
  38. Shedroff N (2001) Experience design, Indianapolis. In: New RidersGoogle Scholar
  39. Spiegelberg H (1982) The phenomenological movement: a historical introduction. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, LondonGoogle Scholar
  40. Stolterman E, Croon Fors A (2008) Critical HCI—a research position proposal. Des Philos Pap 1Google Scholar
  41. Tractinsky N (1997) Aesthetics and apparent usability: empirically assessing cultural and methodological issues. In: Proceedings of CHI 97, pp 115–122, ACM PressGoogle Scholar
  42. Tractinsky N, Hassenzahl M (2005) Arguing for aesthetics in human–computer interaction. I-com 4(3):66–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tractinsky N, Shoval-Katz A, Ikar D (2000) What is beautiful is usable. Interact Comput 13(2):127–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Turkle S (1995) Life on the screen, Identity in the age of the internet. Simon & Schuster, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  45. Turner P (2008) Being-with: a study of familiarity. Interact Comput 20:447–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Udsen L, Erik J, Helms A (2005) The aesthetic turn: unravelling recent aesthetic approaches to human–computer interaction. Digit Creat 16(4):205–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Verbeek P-P (2008) Cyborg intentionality: rethinking the phenomenology of human-technology relations. Phenomenol Cogn Sci 7:387–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wright P, Wallace J, McCarthy J (2008) Aesthetics and experience-centered design. ACM Trans Comput Hum Interact 15(4), Article 18Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of InformaticsUmeå UniversityUmeåSweden

Personalised recommendations