! 1! DESIGN CRITERIA BASED ON AESTHETIC CONSIDERATIONS Bente Dahl Thomsen Abstract Aesthetic criteria for designs are often debated in a very subjective manner which makes it difficult to reach consensus. In order to have a more rational and transparent process, in particular in industrial design, we propose a procedure based on Baumgarten’s aesthetic considerations and Thommesen’s dividing of a form into form elements. The procedure has been tested in student projects. Introduction In science contexts, it is a problem that argument for aesthetic qualities of products is unclear since science is traditionally based on clear or explicit statements. Particularly, in integrated design processes with a systematic selection of solutions based on statements about quantity and quality, it is unfortunate that the statements about product aesthetics are unclear [1]. When the aesthetics is made the focus of design, many students have a hard time structuring the process. In order to solve this problem, we have experimented with a procedure based Baumgarten’s aesthetic considerations and Thommesens’ dividing of a form into form elements. Practical design requires craftsmanship and whether it relies on manual and / or digital tools is important for the outcome [2], but not for design responsibility. This will be discussed in the following, where we search for a clarification of two issues: Firstly, using aesthetic considerations which are analogous to engineering rules and secondly, using methodical approaches to formgiving just as those methods used in ergonomics, manufacturing and technical construction in the integrated design process. The creative and intuitive approaches are common to the problem-oriented process [3], but outside of this study which focuses on the following two related problems: How can designers formulate aesthetic considerations which communicate a clear message to professionals? How can single coherent forms be developed methodically in an interaction between practice-based creation and testing of shape variations driven by selection through aesthetic considerations? Relevant aesthetic considerations in this study relates to three-dimensional forms with a physical representation in space (artefact). Baumgarten’s considerations are a combination of guidelines to advanced aesthetics and general rules about what is more aesthetic than something else. As pointed out by the design researcher Peter Dorm, aesthetic considerations are developed through the creative process [4]. Whether it is the aesthetic considerations which are under continuous clarification in general, if it is the individual designer, who achieves a deeper awareness of the considerations content, or if it is the number of considerations which grows, this study does not give the answer, because it is based on student projects. These questions deserve further study. Background and Related Work The study is rooted in the aesthetic considerations of the modern aesthetics founder, Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten. In his dissertation ‘Meditationes Philosophicae de Nonnullis ad Poema Pertinentibus' from 1735 where he worked out an aesthetics, he focusing on the poem. With the unfinished work 'Aesthetica’ I-II' from 1750 -1758 Baumgarten extended these considerations to cover all the arts [5]. We have found that these considerations are recognized and are still in use among artists and designers [6]. Bases on Gerd Bloxham Zettersten’s conclusion to Peter Dorm’s studies, we expected that today's artists and designers could expand or complement the considerations included in our study. This was ! 2! not the case, which might be because all those who participated in the study had a practical approach to sculpturing and were not trained as an art historian in giving their opinion about other people’s work. Baumgarten expresses that aesthetics (beauty) is a harmony of expression, structure and content. Probably a statement which is identical to what an artist expresses when saying that a work must have a clear leading feature: a main idea (theme), a structure (structural principles) and a content (which provide a work’s richness and evidences power and life) [5, p.74]. Our methodical approach to formgiving rooted in aesthetics is based on this leading feature, although the contents of the three components are only partially resolved in relation to the design of artefacts. The methodical approach allows progression in the students' experience in formgiving, as they have worked with the architectural main impact as methodical approach since the first semester. The main impact expresses the project whole, sustaining idea, central principle or its spirit, usually presented on a postcard in the shape of a drawing [7]. The single coherent form is particularly difficult to describe and assess because of the fluid transitions between the form elements which sculptor Erik Thommesen [8] have chosen to divide his sculptures in. First and foremost Thommesen uses theoretical dividing of a form into form elements when balancing the form into a harmonious whole by scaling and shifting each form element. Other effects such as rhythm, contrast, and activation of space can be processed in the same way [9]. The theoretical division of the form sometimes trigger a physical division. The following jointing of the form elements often involves implementation of new material in the joining zone. Breakdown of the form into the form elements which suggests boundary areas with recognizable features as a basis for analysis of design is introduced by Cheryl Akner-Koler [10]. The division of form elements is central to the way the students work with the leading feature as an approach to formgiving. The Problem and a Solution The initiating problem is unstructured design processes and vague descriptions of the form problems in the students’ critique of each other's product proposals, and very vague presentations of the product's aesthetic qualities in their reports. The problem must be seen in relation to the fact that the majority of the students can express themselves clearly in engineering fields and that design methodology is based on technical parameters. Our idea is to obtain a structured design process and better articulation of the form and accentuation of its aesthetic qualities by encouraging the students to use systematic clarification of the leading feature on the basis of the form element method, to continuously support selection of the best variant as the basis for the next step in the process using Baumgarten’s aesthetic considerations, and finally to encourage the students to use the same principles in their documentation for achieved aesthetic quality. This methodical approach is consistent with Baumgarten’s bright method which is reflected in considerations no § LXXI which actually describes the leading feature the application as a method in relation to formgiving: form expressions should follow immediately after each other so that the theme gradually becomes clearer. Since the theme should be made sensitive, this is the way extensive clarity is sought. We assume that the designer works as an artist and can use the leading feature as a guideline, can identify the form elements, and use Baumgarten’s aesthetic considerations. The problem consequently is What should designers understand as leading features? Does the procedure lead to a structured formgiving process? Does the procedure contributes to clear articulation of forms and their aesthetic qualities? ! 3! The Experiment The leading feature may be considered as a description model and as a method in formgiving with demands on documentation and clarification of the methodical approach. Some of the students have previously completed a project 'Experienced architectural quality' where they were introduces to the leading feature as a method for selecting a sustaining idea, a structural principle (such as a building consisting of serial plans of increasing - decreasing patterns) and a content (atelier + primitive housing expressed by its space program). As a minimum the architectural qualities in that project should be shown in the solutions and preferably be put into words. The study is based on 4 projects made by 4th semester students. Case 1: Design of 23 door handles (13 with manual tools and 10 digital tools). Case 2: Design of 44 door handles with a combination of manual and digital tools. Case 3: Design of 20 computer mice (8 with manual tools and 12 digital tools). Case 4: Design of 14 computer mice with a combination of manual and digital tools. The overall specification of the four cases was given in advance. The students did the detailing of demands and wishes for the design independently. After the first design cycle in 2008, general weaknesses of the solutions in cases 1 and 3 were identified and brought into focus in the evaluation. A similar evaluation in 2009 of cases 2 and 4 was carried out at the time when the student had created the first three models in foam. The instructions for the evaluation were brief: Form groups of 3-4 persons and find out how others perceive your models. First, your group have to agree on the meaning of the following concepts: Form contrast, dynamic composition (illusory motion) and the meanings of line axes, asymmetry, balance, rhythm, repetition, convex / concave transitions. The assessment must consider the following questions [11]: • Which of Baumgarten’s aesthetic considerations does the model meet? • Which main idea do you see behind the model’s design? • Which aesthetic effect does the model have (The form’s motif)? • How is the model's form elements organized? • Which kind of contrasts do occur? • Which dynamic features do occur? • How is the model's scale in relation to its context? Each participant presents three product models without comment. The other students answer the above questions and other questions considered relevant by the group. The instructions suggest the following of Baumgarten’s aesthetic considerations as a basis for evaluation: 1. Images that are rooted in nature become very aesthetic 2. Absolutely simple is a product which does not contain anything that can be omitted without damage to its degree of perfection. Absolute simplicity packs the product with ideas to such an extent that individual ideas can not be distinguished from each other 3. The connection between some form elements will form a special significant element, if these are derived from the main idea and other form elements are not derived from the main idea. It is the connection specifically which contributes to the aesthetic 4. The ever-changing offers an opportunity for new aesthetic sensations. 5. A compound or complex concept represents more than a simple and therefore more aesthetic 6. A work which have many characteristics is more complete than a work which have few characteristics and thereby appear unclear One of the weaknesses of a study based on students’ formgiving is that not all students recognize the benefits of methodical form development or may not have understood fully the method and instead of asking for an explanation of the method answers randomly or fixes themselves on a solution. ! 4! Study Method The study is based on students' minor project reports, which among others include an explanation of the leading feature and identification of the form elements, as well as a reflection on the design process. In order to answer the below the questions, the reports were reviewed: A. What is understood by leading features content? B. Are leading features for designers determined partly by functional demand? C. Will an implementing of the procedure lead to a structured design process? D. Will the procedure contribute to clear articulation of the forms? E. Which of Baumgarten’s aesthetic considerations was used? F. Did use Baumgarten’s aesthetic considerations contribute to extensive clarity? The Findings The leading features content is very vaguely considered in the reports. Material selection and second extent configurations (e.g. texture, colour and light) can best identify the answer to question A. For example, the content is described as follows: “door handle should be made in aluminium and polished to a glossy smooth surface without texture, to convey the cold, cynical, military-industrial terms”. The structural principle for the door handle is its function as a tool for twisting and pulling, and for a computer mouse a resting hand shape. Thus, the door handle form elements are organized along two axes, which cross each other at an angle, partly to support the movement and partly to create a whole. The joining zones are designed such that they reduce the transition between the neck and upper + lower handle elements. For both products the concept is also linked to what the objects basically are, because neither the material choice or second extent configurations can be selected without respect for the products basic functions. The answer to question B is that the designer’s leading features are determined partly by product basic utility properties. The earlier in the process a student reaches the main idea, the better the structural principle is challenged. Lessons from the experiment suggest that getting a main idea and utility properties reconciled is a challenge that encourages students so that they will have a better drive in the process than students who work from a context adjustment solely. Reflection on the formgiving process was supported by a theoretical division into form elements. This was also used in discussion of a form’s weakness and strength with respect to the design specification. Both the leading features and the form elements were also important at the mid-way assessment of the designs. One should be aware that both the teaching, the evaluations, and the synergy of working alongside other students have great influence on how structured the process will be. Answers to question C suggest that a leading feature based deeper than the context lead to a higher aesthetic quality than if it is based in context and use only. Question D is answered positively, because there is a clear correlation between the ability to manage the procedure and achieve a clear articulation of forms. By comparison, there were students who tried formgiving by selected design parameter only and some students who were able to determine the main impact only. The answer to which of Baumgarten’s aesthetic considerations were applied involves only the 6 considerations which the students have worked with in connection with the earlier mentioned evaluations. Consideration number one was given preference in 2009 by exercises in the use of form elements which involve creation of a model from organic material. Basic geometric shapes are the given form elements and when the students create a model from those elements, they get a contrast ! 5! between the organic and the geometric. The most common consideration was number 2, then number 4, but not to explore form variations. Products introduced to the considerations of number 5 do not get their expression directly from a complex concept, but from a complex leading feature. For example, several computer mice had the main idea from a racing car and structure embedded in a wild mouse body. The complex concept would be a racer mouse. The many features considerations of number 6 were evident when contextual links were chosen, for example, a detail, logo and texture were transferred from the portable computer to the computer mouse. Conclusion Whether we get forms with extensive clarity by use of Baumgarten’s aesthetic considerations can not be answered conclusively on these cases, because much indicate that it has given some vague ideas when students encounter these considerations during evaluations, but without putting them into real use in their leading feature or as a guidelines in the design process. However, to the question: How can designers formulate aesthetic considerations which communicate a clear message to other professionals? an obvious answer is to make use of Baumgarten’s aesthetic considerations. Also, to the question: How can a single coherent form be developed methodically in an interaction between practice-based creations and testing of form variations driven by selection through aesthetic considerations? the answer is to use Baumgarten’s bright method expressed by a leading feature based on the theoretical or physical dividing of a form into form elements. References [1] Ulrich, K. T. and Eppinger, S. D. Product Design and Development 2000 New York: McGraw-Hill. pp. 137-159. [2] Dahl Thomsen, Bente & Marianna Chraudin The dilemma – The creation of forms via digital or manual models, New Perspective in Design Education E&PDE 2008 Barcalona pp. 354-350. [3] Dahl Thomsen, Bente, Retningslinier for projektarbejde ved DIA-B, 1993 Danmarks Ingeniørakademi Lyngby, pp. 2-3. [4] Zettersten, Gerd Bloxham, Perspective on Danish Studio Ceramics Artikel i From the Kilns of Denmark 2002 Rhodos, Copenhagen p. 25. [5] Brandt, Per Aage & Søren Kjørup Baumgarten og æstetikkens grundlæggelse. 1968, Forlaget Eccers Copenhagen. [6] Dahl Thomsen, Bente & Tine Munk, Transformation af Baumgartens æstetik til et redskab i værksanalysen og i formgivningen, Arkitektur & Design Aalborg. [7] Fisker, Anna Marie & Tina Bering Keiding Det Arkitektoniske Hovedgreb’ Pandoras Boks red. Lars Botin & Ole Pihl 2005 Aalborg Universitetsforlag, Aalborg [8] Morell, Lars Skulpturen. Samtaler med Erik Thommesen 2006 Boggalleriet Rønde . [9] Ørskov, G. Om skulptur og skulptur oplevelse 2005 Bogen, Copenhagen. [10] Akner-Koler, Cherly Three-dimensional visual anlysis 1994 Konstfack, Stochkolm. [11] Scheel Andersen, Henrik & Ole Laursen Billedkunst Metode, Kronologi Tema 2006 Systime Århus p. 86. . interaction between practice -based creation and testing of shape variations driven by selection through aesthetic considerations? Relevant aesthetic considerations. ! 1! DESIGN CRITERIA BASED ON AESTHETIC CONSIDERATIONS Bente Dahl Thomsen Abstract Aesthetic criteria for designs are often debated