Aesthetic
Computing
by Paul Fishwick, Editor
The MIT Press, Cambridge, 2006
488 pp. Trade, $42.50
ISBN: 978-0-262-06250-3.
Reviewed by Michael Kelly
Department of Philosophy
University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Let me start with two brief disclaimers
to make it clear what aesthetic computing
is not since it is a new field
and there is naturally some unclarity
about its identity. Aesthetic computing
is not the application of computer artifacts
models, programs, data, codes,
interfaces, and the like to art
or aesthetics. There is such a field,
and its called computer art or computer
aesthetics. Also, aesthetic computing
is not directly concerned with the development
of new art mediums such as interactive
art, software art, internet art, and the
like, though these mediums may enter the
discussion because they embody some of
the results of aesthetic computing.
Rather, aesthetic computing is about the
application of the arts and aesthetics
to computing. According
to Paul Fishwick, aesthetic computing
takes the computing discipline itself
as its raw material and explores how aesthetics
might productively shape computing (including
programming languages, AI, HCI, graphics,
visualization) (pp. 7-8). Or in the words
of Roger Malina, the aim of aesthetic
computing is "to transfer ideas and
techniques from the arts to computer science
and engineering" (p. 44).
In elaborating on the impact and scope
of this transfer, Malina highlights a
dichotomy within aesthetic computing,
or indeed within computing as a whole:
Is the computer to be understood as a
transparent "information appliance"
or as a "medium for reshaping perception
and cognition" (p. 44). If the computer
is an appliance, aesthetic computing is
a matter of design aimed at making the
computer as transparent as possible so
that we can achieve the desired results,
such as effective communication or legible
visualization. But if the computer is
capable of shaping perception and cognition,
aesthetic computing is a way to understand
how perception and cognition can be shaped
by and, in turn, shape, technology.
Following the structure of this dichotomy,
Malina outlines two kinds of claim, weak
or strong, that can be made on behalf
of aesthetic computing, depending on whether
were talking about the design of
the finished products of computer technology
or the codes underlying computer software.
"The weak claim is that by
stimulating the flow of ideas and methods
from the arts to computing, computer scientists
and engineers will achieve their objectives
more easily, quickly, or elegantly"
(p. 47; italics added). For example, artists
can demonstrate how computing devices
are more likely to be adopted by the public
if they are found aesthetically appealing;
these insights might, in turn, inspire
innovation in future research projects
(with the Apple iMac or iPod often sited
as exemplary success stories). By contrast,
the strong claim about aesthetic
computing is "that by introducing
ideas and methods from art and design
into computing, new practices and approaches
will emerge responding to new objectives
that would not naturally have evolved
within the computing sciences and engineering"
(p. 48). Here, the claim is that aesthetic
insights gained from artistic practice
do not merely allow computer scientists
to achieve ends formed without taking
aesthetic considerations into account
but that these insights actually shape
the objectives of computing enough "to
redirect the future development of computing,
provoking new developments and inventions
that would otherwise have been impossible.
A different computer science and engineering
may emerge" (p. 50). This is a strong
claim, indeed, which Fishwick corroborates
by claiming that one of the "core
goals" of aesthetic computing is
"to modify computer science through
the catalysis of aesthetics" (p.
11).
To answer which, if either, claim about
aesthetic computing can be supported,
we first need to clarify what aesthetics
is. Fishwick offers some clarification
by dividing aesthetics into three concerns:
modality, or "ways in which
we interface and interact with objects";
culture, meaning genres, movements,
and such in the history of the arts; and
quality, referring to symmetry,
complexity, parsimony, beauty, etc. (pp.
12-13). Although this division is helpful,
the inclusion of "quality" (or,
better, "property") requires
some clarification because it determines
how we approach modality and culture.
So let me add yet another disclaimer.
Aesthetics is not merely about symmetry,
harmony, elegance, optimality, and other
similar properties of the artifacts of
computing, whether they are used in computing
or created by it. Its not that these
properties arent relevant in aesthetic
computing; its just that aesthetics
is a philosophical discipline and these
properties are not, by themselves, philosophical
issues. In fact, aesthetics is not about
the specific properties of any particular
objects, whether works of art, natural
objects, or artifacts of computing [1].
If I can use the term Beauty"
with a big B to stand for
the set of all such properties, including
the particular property of beauty with
a small b, Beauty is not a
property of any object. This does not
mean, intentionally or unwittingly, that
aesthetics is subjective or that, as we
often hear, Beauty is in the eye of the
beholder. Aesthetics isnt subjective
any more than its objective, since
beauty is not in the subject any more
than its in the object [2].
Then what is aesthetics, or, where is
Beauty? In the language of eighteenth-century
aesthetics, Beauty is a relational
property, that is, a property resulting
from relations between human subjects
and certain objects in art or nature.
Or, in the language of contemporary computing,
Beauty is an interactive property
between human subjects and the artifacts
of computing. What this means is that
when aestheticians take up the question
of Beauty, they concern themselves with
the nature and structure of the cognitive
and affective relationships between human
subjects and certain objects in the world,
to which we can now add computers. The
objects here are at the same time occasions
for interactions not only between humans
and objects but among humans. To
take a simple example that does not necessarily
involve computers, when several people
take pleasure in a painting, opera, or
pop song, the artwork is an occasion for
these individuals to discover something
they have in common. The philosophical
issue this discovery provokes is what,
at a deeper level, makes it possible for
people to have a work of art in common.
This deeper level involves human emotions,
passions, and the like, as well as their
effects on human perception and cognition.
Insofar as aesthetics is the interdisciplinary
study of the complex commonality that
underlies our shared experiences of art,
it is necessarily connected to other disciplines
that are also concerned with human emotions,
perception, and their interactions [3].
In contrast to this account of aesthetics,
many contributors to this volume seem
to attribute Beauty to artworks and thus
to computers. For example, Laurent Mignonneau
and Christa Sommerer emphasize complexity,
diversity, and emergence as the properties
in HCI, with a special focus on "users
interaction input" (pp.169-183);
Jonas Löwgren identifies a set of
nineteen qualities tied to HCI (pp. 383-403);
Stephan Diehl and Carsten Görg understand
beauty in terms of the sum of elementary
properties (pp. 229-37); and, finally,
Michael Leyton develops aesthetic rules:
maximization of transfer and maximization
of recoverability (pp. 289-313). But this
focus on Beauty as a property is what
Im claiming is problematic. Beauty
is a property of relations or interactions
among humans (which may very well be what
the above authors have in mind) rather
than of the works that occasion such relations
or interactions. Aesthetics is the understanding
of what makes such relations or interactions
possible, not just what makes them more
effective, more pleasurable, and the like,
though by understanding what makes them
possible, well presumably be in
a better position to address these other
concerns. Aesthetic computing is the same
type of understanding connected directly
to computers [4]. In a word, if aestheticians
now work with computer scientists, as
I now expect they will, it will be a natural
extension of what theyve been doing
all along.
Now, to return to the weak and strong
claims for aesthetic computing, its
helpful, following Fishwick, to narrow
computer science to three areas and to
identify what aesthetic computing might
involve in each case. First, on the level
of computer programming, there are questions
about whether and, if so, how to represent
programs and data structures with "customized,
culturally specific notations." Second,
there are issues about how to incorporate
"artistic methods in typically computing-intensive
activities." And third, in connection
with HCI, there are issues about how to
improve "the emotional and cultural
level of interaction with the computer"
(p. 6).
Fishwick provides a good example of the
first case, for he argues that aesthetics
will alter not only the design of computer
software at the point that users begin
to interface with it, but also the very
programming that makes software possible
(pp. 9, 13-20). The rationale for this
strong claim is that programming will
change as computer scientists alter their
objectives as a result of attaining a
better understanding of the aesthetics
of HCI. Put simply, programming will have
to change to create the desired interface
an obvious point, but one that
is now coming with an aesthetic imperative
attached. Norm Tractinskys and Dror
Zmiris research on "skinnability"
(alternate interfaces to commonly used
applications) is a good example here because
they focus on interaction, while taking
consumers interest in skinnability
as evidence of their interest in the aesthetics
of computing (pp. 405-22).
Concerning visualization, there are two
types which fall under the general heading
of data visualization: scientific visualization,
which is the creation of visual representations
of scientific data from physics, biology,
or any of the natural or social sciences;
and information visualization, which involves
visual models of information from all
sorts of sources: business, government,
the sciences, or elsewhere. Both types
involve aesthetics since visualization
is, in Donna Coxs words, "the
creative translation of data into visual
representation" (p. 94). She provides
a systematic and clear analysis of the
aesthetics of visualization by explaining
the basic metaphorical structure of the
translation of data into visual models
(pp. 89- 114).
Now, some people also speak of knowledge
visualization, which, if I understand
it, is a meta-level of visualization that
articulates the epistemological implications
of the two types. For in knowledge visualization
the claim is that youre not just
visualizing or illustrating what is already
known; rather, in the words of Monika
Fleischmann and Wolfgang Strauss, "artistic
works in the area of aesthetic computing
must lead to a synthesis of sensory perception
and cognitive insight, yielding new ways
of thinking and models of experience"
(p. 131). How this perceptual/cognitive
interface works is a basic subject matter
of aesthetics. For example, Aaron Quigley
uses the expression "relational information,"
which is very similar to the idea of beauty
as a "relational property" or
"interactive property" (pp.
316-33). So theres a natural role
for aesthetic computing in visualization.
Finally, in the third area of computer
science, HCI, we have the following picture,
to quote from Frieder Nake and Susanne
Grabowski: "Interface aesthetics
is different from the aesthetics of packaging,"
the design approach to aesthetic computing,
"in that the interface to software
belongs to the software. Software
never appears without its interface. The
human-computer interface is, first
of all, the face of its software"
(p. 67). In this light, the weak and strong
claims about aesthetic computing would
be better characterized, as they are by
Jay Bolter and Diane Gromala, as the inside
and outside of computers, meaning the
code and the interface (pp. 369-82). So
we dont have to choose between the
weak or strong claims any more than we
have to choose between the code and the
interface. Rather, the interaction between
the code and the interface is the basis
of HCI and, in turn, the basis of aesthetic
computing.
At the end of his introductory essay,
Fishwick asks whether aesthetic computing
is something new or whether it just "rehashed
old material." He and his expert
contributors argue that technology has
developed to the point today where it
is not only possible to pay attention
to aesthetics, but there is now a sense
of urgency coming from computing. In Fishwicks
words: "We have had to wait for the
technology to become available to leverage
the arts" (p. 13). If this is accurate,
what we have here is a new field
called aesthetic computing. And what we
have in this collection is an excellent
contribution to aesthetic computing, an
extremely valuable text for aestheticians
and computer scientists alike.
Works Consulted
[1]Fishwick claims that computer interface
"should be as much about quality
as it is about quantitative performance"
(p. 21). My turn away from "quality"
seems at odds with this claim. But I think
we are proposing something very similar
because he seems interested in quality
only as it relates to the affective as
well as cognitive dimensions of HCI rather
than to the properties of artifacts (e.g.,
a computer or a graphic user interface)
that would occasion such interaction.
[2] Frieder Nake and Susanne Grabowski
(pp. 53-70) add semiotics to the aesthetics
and computing mix, apparently on the belief
that aesthetics is subjective (p. 55)
and needs to be offset by the more objective
semiotics. As I understand aesthetics,
however, semiotics does not add anything
that couldnt be included within
aesthetics. Umberto Ecos combination
of aesthetics and semiotics is an example
of what I have in mind here.
[3] Jane Prophet and Mark dInverno
(pp. 185-96) prefer to use the term "transdisciplinarity"
in place of "interdisciplinarity"
or "multidisciplinarity," because
they think the first term emphasizes that
something new emerges from the interactions
among these disciplines.
[4] Elsewhere [e.g., in my Encyclopedia
of Aesthetics (New York: Oxford University
Press, 1998) or Iconoclasm in Aesthetics
(New York: Cambridge University Press,
2003)], I characterize aesthetics as critical
reflection on art, culture, and nature.
In this light, aesthetic computing is
critical reflection on or philosophical
analysis of the aesthetic theories,
principles, beliefs, ideas, and the like
underlying computing once it is governed
not only by technological concerns but
by artistic practices.