Aesthetics as Pre-Linguistic Knowledge: A Psychological Perspective Author(s): T. W. Allan Whitfield Source: Design Issues, Vol. 21, No.

1 (Winter, 2005), pp. 3-17 Published by: The MIT Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25223975 . Accessed: 22/05/2011 13:10
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mitpress. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The MIT Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Design Issues.

http://www.jstor.org

Aesthetics as Pre-linguistic Knowledge: A Psychological Perspective Whitfield IW. Allan

Introduction As an emerging field distinct from architecture and the fine arts,

proponents of design have sought the theoretical underpinnings necessary to establish itas a discipline in itsown right.Perspectives
from other and cultural disciplines, studies, were particularly influenced prevalent science, the two broad this pursuit at various engineering, areas of science theory." from of "design times, and derived

Scientific such fields

influences

as materials

ergonomics/

human factors, particularly in application to industrialdesign. These

influences also

would follow similar activity,and to identifyamethod of design that

principles to those characteristic of the scientific method.1 However,

permeated

attempts

to describe

design

as a scientific

both designers and design theoristschallenged the concept of design

practice as a scientific activity, instead advocating various concep

tions of "design thinking" and the search for "an epistemology of

practice titioners implicit do bring Such ably with of design an in the artistic, to situations "epistemology emphasis in products intuitive processes which some prac of uncertainty."2 of practice" on the social and does and not fit comfort analysis this

the current as manifest

cultural

"commodities."

Within

paradigm, material culture and itsartifactsprovide a coded system

indicating are available, social with identity. Numerous a lineage stretching in theoretical back and articulations to Veblen. While of this such aspects to tell us posi

analyses of design,

provide and

insight designed

into socially objects

culturally they and

specific are

particular, specific.3

susceptible they shifting

the criticism much 1 N. Cross, "Designerly Ways of Knowing: Design DisciplineVersus Design Science," Design Issues 17:3 (2001 ): 51-52. 2 3 53. Ibid., J. Evans and S. Hall, "What IsVisual Culture?" inVisual Culture:TheReader, J. Evans and S. Hall, eds. (London: Sage Publications, 1999),2. 4 R. Buchanan, "Design Research and theNew Learning," Design IssuesM A (2001): 16. tions about

that they are culture late and or consumers theorists, and

Nonetheless, our

current Western

culture,

as receivers Of recent design

of culture. is notable structure for his broad that he over

Buchanan

view

of

the multifaceted

Within

this, he observes that "the desirability of products has proven to be more complex than itwas thought to be in earlier
design theory. Aesthetics plays a role, but "Identification" and the way Clearly, with the deeper alludes that products this their is an scope problem to seems of to be one social of 'identification/"4 and social identity, positioning. societies, questions may

provides.

standing and

reflect factor, and

lifestyle particularly ?

important for choice

inWestern

2005 Massachusetts Institute Technology of Design Issues: Volume 21, Number 1Winter 2005

identity

creation.

However,

and

contrary

to Buchanan's

view,

it is

contended here that the role of aesthetics ismuch

and constitutes the "deeper ubiquitous problem." in its Aesthetics table problem,

less understood
the intrac to analysis.

remains

All design fields deal explicitlywith the aesthetic. This is a defining

characteristic of design, and constitutes a fundamental omission in

prevalence,

yet resistant

attempts to construct design theory. It is this omission that is the

focus of this paper. The very term "aesthetics" is misleading. Originally coined

by Baumgarten in 1735 to refer to the philosophical pursuit of laws within pertaining to art, ithas generated a raftof theorizing, largely Within this,questions pertain philosophy but also within art theory.
ing to beauty, Greek harmony, meaning and art dominated.5 to However, in its earlier knowl classical it referred sensory-perceptual

edge {aisth?sis), as distinct from intellectual/linguistic knowledge (no?sis)6?a distinction that is consistent with the argument to be
European and became Renaissance associated that "taste" with lost its literal, gustatory judgment. painting, to include arts." Art, Also, sculpture, poetry as we meaning

was not until after the advanced here. To position thishistorically, it

"artistic" at this time, and archi

the association tecture into what now, notion has evolved, now been

of the term "art" with later are to be extended the "fine than

and music, it the

termed

understand years. Even

around

for less

three hundred has

of "disinterested origin,

aesthetic with a

appreciation" application

an

eighteenth a minor

century Western

minority

within

ity culture. This preoccupation

finds expression here in the design that is contended these

has been misleading.

appearance of everyday of aesthetics and

Aesthetics
things. to appreciate of meaning represent (beauty, of aist that It on

the domain category were and

over-focused failed

post-Renaissance in this domain Eurocentric

members,

the extent favored ing

of the phenomena.

Similarly, narrowly elite

the dimensions focused, response again categories Greek

the more The not

harmony). h?sis has it outlines, classical nition

displacement This

of the classical paper, and

meaning of aesthetics

assisted.

the model

approaches Greek notion,

aesthetic rather

perception than the more

in line with common,

the broader narrow defi from

pertaining

to art. Furthermore,

it approaches

aesthetics

perhaps theunusual standpoint of experimental psychology; that is, from a vantage point inwhich theory constructionmust be subject
to

research in cognitive psychology and neurophysiology. The inten tion is to provide a model of aesthetics that is conceptually useful
to 5 F.E. Sparshott, TheStructureof Aesthetics (London:Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1963). 6 7 J. R?e, / See a Voice (London: Harper Collins, 1999). Ibid. 4

experimental

verification.

In so doing,

it draws

heavily

upon

of Reflecting thenotorious difficulty the subject, aesthetics has not fared well in twentieth-century psychology, while inphilosophy
it has fared little better, being, as Sparshott7 observed, "more gener

designers.

ally despised than any other branch of philosophical enquiry." The

dominance of behaviorism and later cognitivism relegated aesthetics

Design Issues: Volume 21, Number 1Winter 2005

published area of experimental psychology. Theoretical resources forprobing aesthetics were problematic, and this largelywas due

to obscurity,despite its illustrious beginnings in 1876 as the second

to the dissociation of emotion from cognition by both behaviorism and cognitivism, the dominant theories in psychology since the
twentieth century. Emotion was considered "noise" within

early

the system. Before the twentieth century,however, the dominant theories of themind were essentially perceptual, inwhich images and sensory meaning provided the foundation of knowledge. The
emergence of language theorists and behaviorism in the early

mid twentieth century, followed by the cognitive revolution in the undermined theperceptualist position. twentiethcentury,effectively
This period also witnessed domain followed and, the demise as might down. of emotion be expected, the past as a mainstream aesthetics as a psychological quasi-emotion

emotion

Over

two decades,

however, neurophysiological
the recognition of research of the primacy into emotion. In

research into brain functioning and

of emotion parallel, precipitated the perceptualist that rely a resurgence position less upon aesthetics critique?and The purpose a is

advanced

and, with

it, notions rationale.

of aesthetics Furthermore, material and

mentalist-linguistic less reliant more upon upon

the "new" culture, and

object

analysis, knowledge

perceptual

its articulation.

of this paper is to describe one such perceptualist theory, and to elucidate itsapplication within design.
The model vational cognition, language. model," that this paper describes, the "categorical-moti as pre-linguistic of advances the notion of aesthetics that preceded

as a form of "knowing" It is contended

the evolution is to elabo

that the function

of aesthetics

rate the categories by which we understand theworld, by attaching

emotion to sensory perceptions. result Before the evolution of units of language, knowl in the to and but this function would edge" external knowledge, more discussed relation to that would world. in the creation appropriate of "affective objects

"motivate With

action"8

the evolution function

of language remains, knowing. knowledge On and

its associated with as will a the be

this underlying

coexists

"conscious"

form of linguistic

However,

later, sensory-perceptual linguistic-based form of knowledge, add-on.

is by no means the contrary, the very

poor

knowledge.

it constitutes foundation

the dominant for its linguistic The sources. 8 P.M. Niedenthal,J. B. Halberstadt,and A. H. Innes-Ker, "Emotional Response Categorization," PsychologicalReview 106 (1999): 337-361.

provides

categorical-motivation it reconciles

model

derives theories

from within

two main psychol

First,

two opposing

motivational model and the categorical ogy,what will be termed the

model. tual Secondly, knowledge it relies and, heavily upon the notion reverts of sensory-percep classical Greek in so doing, to the

concept

of aesthetics.

Design Issues: Volume 21, Number 1Winter 2005 5

The Motivational Model

The most stream "Why what ones aside engage comprehensive psychology do we are engage came theory from of aesthetics Berlyne.9 activities? He What to emerge asked from main the questions: us?and and all,

in aesthetic These

motivates

the rewards?" psychology to or

are not unreasonable provide and some artists,

questions, answers. millions After of and

to which

should designers performing

from professional in listening

people artistic

music,

designing,

pursuits. The range and diversity of activities would be difficult to

account for via Berlyne critical conceived theory analyses alone. activities as an elaborate form of aesthetic

of play in which a mild formof pleasure would be induced. Central

to Berlyne's

need tomaintain a level that is neither too high nor too low. Three
types of sensation induce arousal:

theory

was

the notion

of

"physiological"

arousal

and

the

of noise and brightness of color. Ecological

place dated. that he stimulus or aspects around Collative focused. elements, us, and in which social sensations Collative which interested refers render which

collative. Psychophysical refersto such properties of stimuli as levels refers to events taking
be itwas between accommo on these either and factors would Berlyne,

psychophysical,

ecological,

and

to comparisons the stimulus render more

or less complex; more or less a moder

of experiences, hypothesized

the stimulus stimuli

novel.

ate level of arousal will be found pleasurable, while those inducing a very low or very high level of arousal will be found less pleasurable. This relates to thenotion of pleasure involving the "right" amount of
stimulus rather than too much or too little. Berlyne's centers model within posits that attain is built to assimilate the quest position found

Berlyne

that collative

inducing

support fromneurophysiological
levels activated In relation seek exposure The explore pleasure and to design, or new Berlyne's

studies indicating that arousal

the brain.10 that we a desired as should level the

aversion

to novel

experiences

of arousal. need As to

underlying and,

motivation

into humans new

in so doing, animals,

information.

novelty probably iswired in to the brain. From the standpoint of the designer, the pursuit of novelty is consistentwith the quest for
"new" designs and, from new the standpoint designs. should otherwise However, not be they so novel become of the receiver, in line with the positive Berlyne's beyond receptivity model, an 9 Aesthetics and D.E. Berlyne, York:Appleton Psychobiology(Ue\N 1971). Century-Crofts, 10 J. Olds and P.Milner, "Positive Produced by Electrical Reinforcement Stimulationof Septal Area and other Regions of Rat Brain,"Journalof 47 ComparativePhysiology (1954) : 419-427. 6 such to such

information-seeking

for sensory-perceptual

experiences level,

as to extend aversive.

intermediate

Effectively,

novelty must be clearly founded in the familiar. The Categorical Model

While a number of studies within

by support forBerlyne's theory, the 1970s, a growing body of results

was inconsistent. Most of the research supporting Berlyne's model

experimental

psychology

provided

derived from studies involving people's

normally only would be encountered

responses to stimuli that

situation;

in an experimental

Design Issues: Volume 21, Number 1Winter 2005

11 T. W. A.Whitfield and P. E. Slatter, "The Effects Categorizationand of on Prototypicality Aesthetic Choice ina Furniture Selection Task,"British Journal ofPsychology70 (1979): 65-75. 12 Ibid. and Preferencefor Perceived Similarity Visual Art:A MultidimensionalScaling Analysis," Perceptionand Psychophysics 20 (1976): 445-452; D. P.A. O'Hare and I. E. Gordon, "Dimensionsof the Perception ofArt:Verbal Scales and Similarity Scandinavian Journalof Judgements," Psychology 18 (1977): 66-70; P. Hekkert and P. C.W. van Wieringen, "Complexity as and Prototypicality Determinants of theAppraisal of Cubist Paintings," British JournalofPsychologyQ? (1990): 483-495. 14 T. G?rling,"The Structural Analysis of Environmental Perceptionand Cognition: A MultidimensionalScaling Approach," and Environment Behaviour 8 (1976): 385-415; A. T. Purcell, "TheAesthetic ExperienceandMundane Reality" in CognitiveProcesses in thePerceptionof Art,W. R. Crazierand A. J. Chapman, eds., (Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1984); D. M. Pedersen, "Perception Interior of Designs," Perceptual andMotor Skills 63 (1986): 671-676. 15 J. H. Langlois and L A. Roggman, "Attractive Faces Are OnlyAverage," PsychologicalScience 1 (1990): 115-121. 16 C. Martindale and K.Moore, "Priming, and Journal Prototypicality, Preference," of Experimental Human Psychology: Perceptionand Performance 14 (1988): 661-670. 17 P. Hekkert, Morel, and D. Snelders, K. and "Typicality, Originality, Aesthetic XlVth Preference," Proceedings of the Association Congress of the International ofEmpirical Aesthetics (Prague, 1996, unpublished). 18 J. C.Ward, M. J. Bitner, and J. Barnes, and "Measuring the Prototypicality Meaning of Retail Environments," JournalofRetailing 68 (1992): 194-220. 19 B. Lokenand J. Ward, "Alternative Approaches to Understandingthe DeterminantsofTypicality," Journalof ConsumerResearch 17(1990): 111 -126. 13 D. P.A. O'Hare, "Individual Differences in

model

forexample, dot patterns and random polygons, the typeof atomistic material then favored in experimental psychology. While Berlyne's achieved success in explaining the results of experiments using such stimuli, ithad difficultywith research that involved
responses to real-world objects such as paintings, buildings, on and

furniture.These latter studies showed that the category towhich

the stimulus aesthetic belonged exerted a powerful influence people's responses.

Whitfield and Slatter11advanced the "categorical model" in 1979 to account for these discrepant findings. They explained the
effect a of categories on people's as aesthetic opposed to responses Berlyne's evaluated category mediation, by adopting cognitive interpretation, They are judged stimuli argued motivational per se, but

approach. rather

that objects to the via

are not cognitive

in relation are processed

accessed. mean

Effectively,

categorical

ing that theway people respond aesthetically to objects will be determined by the categories they already have developed for understanding
cognition typical?or

such objects?after
In addition,

all, this is how perceptual

to which a stimulus accessed determines

operates.

the extent

is

prototypic?of

whereby people will

into their predetermined as a discrete "chair." evaluated category

findmore pleasure
categories. chair, but rather the more

the category

affect,

in objects that fit well

words, a chair is not of the cognitive prototypic?an

In other

as a member typical?or

Furthermore,

individual chair is of the cognitive category "chair," thehigher the

evaluation has wide been of it. Termed remarkably of objects, colors.16 "preference-for-prototypes," robust in predicting people's this hypothesis evaluations and buildings,14 of a to

range

from furniture,12 paintings,13 it also found explicit

faces15 and area

Notably,

application

in the retail

of design In its

to explain

people's consumer to design, to designs

evaluations products,19

of telephones,17 and "brands."20 posits

fast-food

environments,18 application exposure should A

the categorical that conform to our look

model to

that

we

should

seek

expectations. repre a piano

Effectively, sentation

a chair

correspond chair should

internal

cognitive and

of "chair."

like a chair,

should look like a piano; just as apples should look like apples, and
tomatoes Georgian like chair tomatoes. should At look a more like a differentiated Georgian chair, category and a grand level, piano a

should look like a grand piano. This is the converse of Berlyne's model favoring novelty. The categorical model posits thatwe like what we know, that pleasure is generated by the confirmation of
expectations, contempt. and that familiarity breeds pleasure?as distinct from

The Categorical-Motivation Model Clearly, themodels make conflictingpredictions. The motivational

model predicts that a moderate discrepancy from expectations?

novelty?will

be favored,while the categorical model predicts that

'

Design Issues: Volume 21, Number 1Winter 2005

a confirmation

of

expectations?prototypicality?will

be

favored.

Given
was

that empirical evidence supports both positions, though skewed towards the latterfor real objects, a theoretical reconciliation
required. The "categorical-motivation model" was conceived as

a merger of these two conflicting theories. Following initial attempts

in the 1980s,21 a coherent The are categories formulation was offered is bipolar. in 2000.22 At one extreme articula and categorical-motivation that largely are are model formed and

closed

to further

tion, while open ness"

at the other

extreme

categories concepts

that are of "closure"

ill-formed and

to further are crucial.

articulation.

The

"open

Closed Categories
Closed provide ciations via categories part can be are of two types: those that are upon which achieved "wired in" and asso of the genetic constructed; In the former landscapes that wired-in infrastructure and type, those further

that have

completion exist

learning. and

it is notable transcend had

that preferences cultural

for faces This became are ment.

that

largely categories

differences. value and

suggests

evolutionary type, closed no

genetically

imprinted.23

In the latter

categories refine

existing

"knowledge" of these will domain, to be

structures

that require

further

Examples are

be person-specific; cathedrals

however, and Renaissance

and within paint audi category brand to most

the "cultural" ings ence. likely

medieval closed

categories of novel

to a Western-educated examples of each Coca-Cola categories the more

It is difficult

to conceive

emerging. and Marlboro 20 P.Nedungadi and J. Hutchinson,"The of Prototypicality Brands: Relationships with BrandAwareness, Preference, Advances inConsumer and Usage" in Research, E. HirschmanandM. Holbrook, eds., 12 (1985): 498-503. 21 Preference T. A.Whitfield, "Predicting W. forFamiliar, Everyday Objects: An between Two Confrontation Experimental Theories ofAesthetic Behavior,"Journal of Environmental Psychology3 (1983): 221-237. 22 W. A.Whitfield, "Beyond T. Towards a Categorical Prototypicality: MotivationModel ofAesthetics," Arts 18 (2000): Studies of the Empirical 1-11. 23 J. F. Wohlwill, "Environmental as Aesthetics: The Environment a Human Behavior Source ofAffect" in Vol. 1,1.Altman and and Environment J. F. Wohlwill, eds. (NewYork:Plenum Press, 1976); and J. H. Langloisand L Faces Are Only A. Roggman, "Attractive Average." 8

In the domain cigarettes

of design, probably With are

the ubiquitous fixed, closed

people, which may account for the difficulty of redesigning them

while

more highly it is evaluated. In type an object is of that category, the

the case an entire will of natural range objects such exists we as trees, apples, dogs, and tomatoes, of objects etc. in which like apples preference-for-prototypes to look like apples, dogs

retaining

their appeal.

closed

categories,

proto

prevail.

In other words,

to look more

like dogs,

It is known

that the brain With regard

processes to closed

prototypes categories,

we can pleasure is better explained either by the speed with which or by their intrinsically wired-in desirability. Before classify stimuli the acquisition of language and culture, all objects would have been
The brain evolved Its modus within operandi this pre-linguistic did not must and precul shift to accommodate accommodate it. "natural."

rapidly

than non-prototypes.

tural environment. designed objects:

rather, designed

objects

Open Categories
At the opposite end of the spectrum sufficient are categories that are open such would and unformed, tion can nizable again though with take place: and will redundancies novelty that categoriza be unrecog categories audi

objects

of maximum

therefore meaningless. be person-specific;

Examples

of such

open

however,

to a Western-educated

Design Issues: Volume 21, Number 1Winter 2005

ence would could will

"modern qualify include well-formed

architecture" as open mobile

and

avant-garde In the domain computer The

paintings of design,

no

doubt

categories. phones and exist. from

examples case

printers.

In neither

categories derive

clearest

examples and

of open involve

categories,

however,

childhood

learning,

the full spectrum of the recognition of objects and their associated

performance with natural characteristics. objects, but For a child, since the advent this must take place and not only of culture its artifacts,

with designed objects as well. The positive affectivevalue of stimuli model would be in the furtherarticula applicable to this area of the
tion of categories, see or before, experience but the creation something of "knowledge." not Effectively, seen or people that they have enough experienced already

this "new"

item has

resemblance

to items

experienced that itprovides new knowledge of its type?it extends

the category this aspect generate structure. of aesthetic greater We can account for the pleasure involved Novel in experience in their in terms of arousal. complexity stimuli to other

arousal

of relation

stimuli and past experience, though not toomuch (unrecognizable) or too little (mundane). The processing of novel stimuli ultimately
results progresses in the formation along or refinement away of prototypes, from as the category of open and the spectrum the extreme

ill formed towards thatofwell formed.

In application to

positions the designer in a conceptual space within the range from

open to closed categories?and categories that are both personand

design,

the categorical-motivation

model

culture-specific. Negotiating
product within this space of existing ful constraints with, where and

thehurdles of delivering a designed

feat. At one extreme, must be the power contended meaning prototypes

is no mean category

at the other

extreme,

the creation

of categorical

little or none

exists.

Categorization Given the centrality of categorization within

tion will be useful to describe it in more detail and to posi model, it

tion aesthetics research its origin domain within within this framework. Categorization was a and, major given A of cognitive formed psychology in the 1970s

the categorical-motiva

at that time,

the basis

for the categorical is that categorization

model. is one

fundamental

tenet of this perspective

the basic functions of life?one of the elemental ways

form meaning. Categorization involves grouping

in which we
together

as similar, and distinguishing them from other objects. It further involves being able to identifynew objects thatwe have not seen
before, have How and assigning them to a see category. trees For example, have not are while we seen many does trees, we will recognize that we seen before.

objects

the brain And, more

new

trees? What how does

the processes categorize

involved?

them so quickly? Research into categorization tackled such prob

lems, and provided answers in the form of inter- and intra-category 9

important,

the brain

Design Issues: Volume 21, Number 1Winter 2005

structure. "best"

Central

to such of each other

structures category category to an

were in that

prototypes. they

These

are

the

examples with

share more

features the brain

in common processes We tion within function

members.

In addition,

them more do a not

quickly. object To place us per se, but rather to its posi context, the

respond

category

structure.

this in a design in assimilating

of design

theory

is to assist

new material in isolation: theory assimi i.e., we so,

into existing they exist as

category

structures. and our then

Categories connected

do not exist structures.

interlocking within we

Design

provides lation: can we

linkages in this

category

structures

that enable item, In it and more. the

sense,

"understand"

the new

position also extend

it in terms our

of categorical

meaningfulness. expand

doing

category i.e., we

structure?we therefore

articulate

further

connections, From a (i.e.,

"understand" perspective,

sensory-perceptual categorize), say, a

capacity it from

to a

recognize

dog

and

distinguish

tree is knowledge?fundamental
one's way home is of environmental categorization),

knowledge. The ability to find

knowledge is essential (a kind and for survival?as

sensory-perceptual-spatial

is the capacity to distinguish between a rabbit and a tiger; after all,

we edge. eat rabbits, but tigers eat us. knowledge ease. in our in brain rule. This is not is not insignificant trivial: knowl feats Sensory-perceptual it involves

of highly sophisticated brain processing thatwe have evolved to

execute effective, 24 J. LeDoux, TheEmotionalBrain: The of Mysterious Underpinnings Emotional Life (New York:Simon and Schuster, 1996). 25 of E. Rosch, "On the Internal Structure Perceptionand Semantic Categories" in CognitiveDevelopment and the Acquisition of Language, T. E.Moore, Academic Press, 1973); ed. (NewYork: and E. Rosch and C. B. Mervis, "Family Resemblances: Studies inthe Internal of Structure Categories," Cognitive 26 Psychology! (1975): 573-605. W. Barsalou, "Ideals, CentralTendency, L. as of and Frequency Instantiation Determinantsof Graded Structure in Categories," JournalofExperimental Memory, and Psychology:Learning, Cognition] 1(1985): 629-654. 27 P.M. Niedenthal,J. B. Halberstadt,and A. H. Innes-Ker, "EmotionalResponse Categorization." 28 and P. Bloom, "Intention, History, Artifact Concepts," CognitionGO (1996): Art 1-29; and J. Levinson,"Extending JournalofAesthetics and Historically," Art Criticism (1993): 411-423. 51 10 As with consummate little store out, the Because ability the brain has evolved to be it puts to understand the processes. is the

LeDoux24 and

points not

processing,

the conscious such

exception

Furthermore,

sensory-percep

tual knowledge
processing performance. bite us, while goes

is not limited simply to object recognition. Such

beyond is why object we recognition, know is not that linguistic and trees embraces object and dogs cannot run up Even

That dogs

can. This

knowledge.

know this!
Research into categorization structure.25 a concept that do they home has expanded considerably now since

its initial focus upon taxonomies of objects and the identification

of category-prototype goal-derived categories common, "things categories, consist other to take Categorization put not forward incorporates whereby features such catego The in as by Barsalou, have

of items than that

necessarily to a particular

relate during

goal,

from one's

a fire."26 Emotional have been

ries27 and

intentionalist28

categories is a further

also

identified.

latterare pertinent todesign, and recognize that the intentionbehind

the design of an object categorical variable.

Aesthetic Categories us nothing about Significantly, the debate on categorization tells

aesthetics category and neither little has about been effect. advocated goal-derived, Aesthetics nor as a differentiated Ifwe emotional, accept and elucidated.

that there are

taxonomic,

intentionalist,

Design Issues: Volume 21, Number 1Winter 2005

possibly aesthetic categories, thenwhere do we position aesthetic

categories? goal-derived, appear nonverbal as Aesthetic categories nor appear neither primarily emotional; involving category content; is taxonomic, rather they intentionalist, sensory-perceptual sensory material. and An necessarily categories aesthetic in semantic

essentially intrinsically we

sensory-perceptual seem to understand categories

lacking

that is how

the meaning are not fixed

of the term aesthetic. in terms of content?

Furthermore, clearly they

aesthetic

are elastic in theirflexibility to absorb change (e.g., fashions). Similarities do exist between aesthetics and emotion. A distinctive featureof aesthetics, like emotion, is that itresults froman
engagement or lesser as with extent. normal There are such objects?though, objects whose as Beethoven's is shared like emotion, primary function to a greater could as well functions, to objects be as such whose

stated objects

aesthetic, aesthetic styling

symphonies, with other

whose

function of a new

as the exterior aesthetic

Chrysler Also,

car, through there

function

that arewell formed and largely closed to furtherarticulation, such

as Renaissance that are tion, shares paintings to a Western-educated and paintings. therefore open audience, and others relatively as unformed to further articula

is only minor.

are aesthetic

categories

such with

avant-garde emotion

Characteristics and the fact that indicate and

that aesthetics they cannot be to

are diffuseness These

evaluated which

for correctness. aesthetic experiences

characteristics cognition,

the degree perhaps

" some lighton thedifficulty describing such of phenomena as design

and "design

are unlike

shed

processes''

We might surmise thataesthetic categories are defined by the

emotions A problem not that aesthetic is that to. For some example, styling if aesthetic might has experiences appear evoke, to evoke as has been suggested.29 while emotion, others but emotion, may are are evoke

thinking."

appear does ena.

the "blues"

the exterior Furthermore, we

of a new

car? Both

aesthetic

categories that they and of

similar

phenom to emotional category

categories, based goals.

assume outlined

share

similar

Ross

the goals a source to our does

of emotional problem knowledge

"inference, is emotional to understand here that

prediction,

explanation,

as categories M Thus, solving." that allows It is contended us

categorization and respond indeed

surroundings? share these

aesthetics

characteristics

with

emotion, but that aesthetics has the specific function of elaborating

our 29 P.M. Niedenthal, J. B. Halberstadt, and A. H. Innes-Ker,"Emotional 30 Response Categorization." B. H. Ross, "The Effects CategoryUse of on LearnedCategories,"Memory and Cognition28 (2000): 51-68. category system via the attachment of emotion to

furthercontended that aesthetics is neither essentially cognitive (as

we understand it via

cognition.

It is

we understand itvia linguistic cognition), but rather that itderives

from a pre-linguistic-cognitive cognition. linguistically. For stage of human it has evolution?a proven very kind of precognitive to articulate this reason, difficult

linguistic

cognition)

nor

emotional

(again,

as

Design Issues: Volume 21, Number 1Winter 2005

11

Social and Evolutionary Theories It can be argued that aesthetics is fundamental tohuman life simply
by observing There exists a the extent powerful to which drive people design the visual their environments. appearance of all to control

artifacts,habitats, and selves. It is difficult to find artifacts,habitats, and selves that have not been subject to decoration/design, and it is virtually impossible to findmanufactured
aesthetic component. shape, The urge and pattern,

objects without a
the appearance so endemic that

designed

to control texture?is

of surfaces?color, it cannot

be overlooked. theorists explain the drive serves a to control display visual function, appearance signaling

Social by contending

that aesthetics

material culture and its position within the social group. Effectively,
artifacts evidence social provide indicates construction. a coded system indicating cannot people social be will lack identity. However, for as that aesthetics For example, fully accounted respond

aesthetically applica

to stimuli

that, from a social

standpoint,

"real world"

tions. Ithas been demonstrated conclusively thatpeople will, when most disembodied of stimuli (colors, lines,poly presented with the
gons, etc.), make so affective/aesthetic is apparently theorists approach appreciation social as judgments, a somewhat theorists. They and indeed that the task of doing more meaningful adopt social to them. similar, account art and mate even though for the ornamen signaling postu theo

Evolutionary biological, and

existence tation) system. lated as

of aesthetics device

(essentially biological

as a ritualistic The latter,

or as a

in its more in female

focused cosmetic

form, has fertility selection.

been These

originating status

signals.31

rists tend to see the arts primarily as avenues forcompetitive display,

to enhance approaches their capacity There ics, and sexual aesthetic one cultural and thereby sexual Unfortunately, such fail to account for change, is little doubt that may The are also for the diversity and the extent of aesthetic of both phenomena, and

individual

differences. that a social impact or upon element exists for aesthet function towhich of

the biological concerns

selection. choices

inevitable socially, we

question indeed

the extent

biologically, are

constructed.

With regard to the evolutionary perspective, this paper contends

that the elaborate for mating "good-bad" objects produce but not necessarily of our "skill need displays" to attribute codification, purposes, natural extensions

to all sensory

experiences. model allows

In terms

of social

constructed realm of aesthetics. The position it adopts is that the

function 31 C. Power, "Beauty Magic: The Origins ofArt" inTheEvolutionof Culture,R. and C. Power,eds., Dunbar,C. Knight, Press, (New Jersey:RutgersUniversity 1999). 12 ration"; of aesthetics effectively, as predates it predates both social language acquisition as we and "deco organization and social would understand then the

the categorical-motivation

for the socially

it.However, application as would

social

organization to satisfy to the new

its artifacts goals

arose,

of aesthetics its application

be anticipated; and

forms

of communication

new display brought about by the evolution of language. Thus, the

Design Issues: Volume 21, Number 1Winter 2005

medium
as has ballet).

of language has been aestheticized

communication within mathematics, the "elegance" (music) and Even that most and

(literature, poetry),
(dance, medium are

aural

also movement post-linguistic

of communication, espoused.

"beauty"

of solutions

Pre-linguistic Knowledge The origin of language ispertinent to the concept of aesthetics as pre
linguistic knowledge. Disagreement exists as to the precise evolu

tionary origin of language. Positioning the point atwhich complex languages began ranges fromapproximately 200,000 to 50,000 years
ago. The earlier estimation derives from fossil records

the physiology only thenwas

sounds facts and interpreted spoken to be made. decoration as evidence leave The

indicating

that

inplace to enable complex language

from 50,000 the emergence ago, and of arti has been Since and even over years symbolic trace, the area

latter derives

approximately

of language-based no physical

behavior.32 has a long

languages history.

contentious banned

In 1878, However,

the French while

Academy there is

of Science disagreement

its discussion.

the temporal origins of language, it is agreed that a pre-linguistic state existed. In this lengthyperiod of hominid/human evolution,
the question of "knowing" exists. In what form did

in the absence of linguistic cognition? Bickerto33argues that language is fundamental "to all distinctively human thought and conscious
ness." Also, Dennett34 considers that

"knowing"

exist

a direct product of language capacity." Interestingly,Corballis35 that the origin of spoken language derives from recently argued
visual signals: effectively, spoken

"thought

and

language

are

tion of hand signals. This is a difficultarea to investigate, given that

there are no pre-linguistic is circumstantial, survivors to interrogate and

language

evolved

as an elabora

has its limits.The evidence forpre-linguistic knowledge/aesthetics

but worthy of consideration.

introspection

Disembodied
If little else, conclusively 32 33 C. Holden, "No Last Word on Language Origins,"Science 282 (1998): 1455-1458. D. Bickerton, Language and Human Behavior (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1995). 34 D. Dennet, Consciousness Explained (Boston:LittleBrown, 1991). 35 M. Corballis, "TheGesturalOriginsof Language,"American Scientists! (1999): 138-145. 36 T. W. A.Whitfield and T. J. Wiltshire, "ColorPsychology: CriticalReview," A Genetic,Social, and General Psychology Monographs 116 (1990): 385-411. bodied ments.

Stimuli
research in experimental will, when psychology presented with has demonstrated the most aesthetic disem judg that people (colors, reservations

of stimuli Despite

lines, polygons, as

etc.), make

to the precise

the task is apparently meaningful to them. This suggests that, for a

stimulus merely to elicit taxonomic. an aesthetic response, hardly it needs be to be no more The than In fact, it needs taxonomic. popular

interpretations

made,36

classes of disembodied
in aesthetics However, (e.g., these color are not

stimuli characteristic of empirical research

chips, objects polygons) are, at most, sense: taxonomic. rather, they in the accepted

are attributes of objects, the which objects are building blocks from
constructed cal entities, within they perceptual clearly lack cognition. Furthermore, as For categori example, "goal-directedness."

polygons hardly would qualify as "things to take fromone's home

Design Issues: Volume 21, Number 1Winter 2005 13

during no

a fire."37

Similarly,

they have And from

no

"intentionalist" standpoint, they are

identity:38 they lack

one makes

polygons. anticipations actual

a social

"real world" of generating

of outcomes:

as such, The

incapable determin

or conceived

preferences.

social

istexplanation offered for "realworld" objects, therefore,cannot be

offered for "disembodied" and one offer buys stimuli. Polygons, after all, have no signi fier status tion": no little opportunity or covets polygons. for "conspicuous Significantly, consump however, the

fact that people will make affective/aesthetic judgments of such

anodyne, meaningless stimuli is

cognitively impoverished stimuli can elicit aesthetic appraisal, then it isplausible to assume that all stimuli can. The "Mere Exposure" Effect
In what showing pictogram, 37 L. W. Barsalou, "Ideals, CentralTendency, as and Frequencyof Instantiation DeterminantsofGraded Structure in Categories." 38 P. Bloom, "Intention, and History, Artifact Concepts." 39 of R. B. Zajonc, "Attitudinal Effects Mere Exposure,"JournalofPersonalityand Social Psychology (1968, Monograph Supplement 9): 1-27. 40 R. F.Bornstein,"Exposureand Affect: Overview andMeta-analysis of Research, 1968-1987," PsychologicalBulletin 106 (1989): 265-280. 41 R. B. Zajonc, "Feelingand Thinking: Closing theDebate over the Feeling and IndependenceofAffect" in The Thinking: Role ofAffect inSocial Cognition,J. P. Forgas,ed. (Cambridge: Press, 2000). CambridgeUniversity 42 J. LeDoux, "Emotionand theAmygdala" inTheAmygdala:Neurobiological Mystery,and Aspects ofEmotion, J. Mental Dysfunction, P.Aggleton, ed. (New York: Wiley, 1992); J. LeDoux, in Interactions "Cognitive-Emotional theBrain" inTheNature of Emotion,P. Ekmanand R. J. Davidson, eds. (Oxford: Oxford Press, 1994); J. LeDoux, University TheEmotionalBrain: The Mysterious of Underpinnings Emotional Life;and A. R. Damasio, "A Second Chance for Neuroscience of Emotion" in Cognitive Emotion,R. D. Lane and L.Nadel, eds. Press, (New York:OxfordUniversity 2000). !4 of similar is now people a classic what study, Zajonc39 to them was a demonstrated meaningless when that, by simply object, shown seen was a Chinese a range more

interesting.

If such

socially

and

that it influenced pictograms. The

their preferences pictogram

likely tobe preferred, even though subjects in the experiment could

not remember seeing it. Zajonc's results have been

previously

This effect indicates that replicated more than two hundred times.40
positive aesthetic responses effect to an object have can be induced by "mere exposure"?an that advertisers intuitively recognized.

independently

by Interestingly, Zajonc took this a step further preexposing people to a pictogram for such a short interval (milliseconds) that they
actually to explain saw nothing.41 their The same effect was gave observed. various When reasons asked to do preferences, people

with thedesign properties of the respective pictograms?all

spurious. that The significance something could of this research does not not see even is that "liking" only require perceptual

clearly
cogni

it demonstrates

tion. Not pictogram, did

people actually

remember anything.

seeing This

the preexposed the obvious

question that, iftheperceptual/cognitive system did not see it, then

the brain detect it.After all, the preexposures

they didn't

raised

how

but what aesthetic liking. Something in thebrain must have seen it, and how? The answer to this intriguingquestion began to emerge very recently from the field of neurophysiological research. LeDoux,42
the amygdala has a direct, "fast-track" connection to the eye. The

generated

an

among others, has demonstrated that a part of themidbrain called

amygdala picks up informationmore quickly than the cognitive

system, cannot, and and as even detects information that the cognitive studies. agent. and centers However, It attaches and in the case of Zajonc's preexposure is an both emotion positive

significantly, to incoming this to other

the amygdala information, of the brain

emotion relays

negative,

parts

including

the cognitive

centers.

Significantly,italso is a powerful and primitive agent, strongly impli

cated in experiences of fear and pleasure. One of its functions is to

Design Issues: Volume 21, Number 1Winter 2005

"modulate have no

cognition conscious and

with access

emotion."43 to the actions its workings.

Perhaps

most

significantly, We

we

of the amygdala. Why? From an

cannot

introspect

ascertain

evolutionary

standpoint, the emotion system has features that alert the organism
for swift irrelevant: action. To be subject to introspective was analysis speed. was clearly process the trade-off for accessibility Detailed

ing is time-consuming. From "modulation consciously the standpoint by of categorization emotion" to us: we is not do and aesthetics, the that we it happen.

of cognition control. It

something not make

not to suggest that they are incapable of providing some insight: rather it states that much probably will be inaccessible to them.This may account for the difficultyof analyzing the processes by which
designers arrive at a design, and why a scientific approach to design

It is simply not important to the brain thatwe have access to this. And this is true for the actions of designers with aesthetics. This is

happens

may be implausible.
Synaesthesia

well within themodel of pre-linguistic cognition. Synaesthesia fits

It is the phenomenon between different whereby senses. sensory experience "crosses over" The most common form of this is "colored

hearing." People with this form of synaesthesia see colors while

hearing older would particular sounds. Synaesthesia separate before have about sense probably perceptions, of language.44 additional in a more Some have is evolutionarily and The certainly function than ontologically have occurred might

the advent been

of synaesthesia sensory than

to provide

cross-modal efficient way argued that

information

the environment sense perceptions.

completely

separate

synaesthesia is a part of normal limbic system functioningofwhich

we are unaware, while others into maintain with that it is an ability that, of interestingly, language.45 A number weaker of cross-modal This sensory is most associations evident remain in a recedes latency the child's development

form of synaesthesia.

in the associa

43 44 45 46

J. LeDoux, "Cognitive-Emotional in Interactions the Brain." R. E. Cytowic,The Man Who Tasted Abacus, 1998). Shapes (London: L. E.Marks, TheUnityof theSenses Academic Press, 1978). (NewYork: J.M. Williams, "Synaesthetic Adjectives: A Possible Law of Semantic Change," Languages (1976): 464-465.

perception lays the foundation for the development of analogy and metaphor as expressed through language.Williams, inhis analysis of the development of theEnglish language, contends thatnot only do
inappropriate metaphors not hold (i.e., they drop out of use remark

tion of color (vision) with dimensions such as warm/cool (touch) and loud/quiet (hearing). It even has been argued that synaesthetic

ably quickly), but changes inword usage develop from "the physi most evolutionarily primitive sensory ologically least differentiating,
modalities versa." * For to the most example, differentiating, the word "sharp" most was advanced, but not vice to touch, first applied

followed by taste,and finallyhearing and visual shape. Significantly,

this development does not occur in reverse order.

Design Issues: Volume 21, Number 1Winter 2005

15

we discount the strong form of synaesthesia as an adult If

rarity, we are left to explain one now the weaker, This longer associationist appears to be form as an of apparently the strong For universal form, and what phenomenon. that no a residue purpose. apparent

serves

any apparent

example,

is the advantage our

of associating

temperature (warm-cool) with color? Similarly, for melody, what

purpose is now served by capacity as to store in F?r and remember are such these synaesthesia-laden sound sequences from sound apparently sequences meaningful Elise? Why aesthetic

to us? Do

catego Do

ries derive they exist

this cross-modal, cross-modal

sensory-perceptual sensory

domain?

for articulating at an

associations?experi

ences that are not linguistically accessible? Before the development

of language, opment, provide and early stage of the species' sensory knowledge. cognitive modalities devel would the capacity additional to cross-articulate sensory-perceptual

Theoretical Implications
A key feature of the categorical-motivation not as an "artistic" for acquiring aspect and model of design, creating is that it conceives but rather as a of aesthetics fundamental

process

knowledge?pre

linguisticknowledge. In linewith this, itrejects thepost-Baumgarten

view as of aesthetics, and adopts knowledge. the classical The core Greek concept notion of aisth?sis sensory-perceptual involves pleasure. of new is that categori it is posited that

zation

In the context information also

of aesthetics,

the assimilation

to extend,

refine,

and

elaborate

the "categories-in-relation" of categories "aesthetics" world. The category use function system via leads was to greater the modus

involves

pleasure.

The modulation we now term

fitness operandi

for purpose.

What

of understanding to be

the external

of aesthetics the attachment once again,

appears

to elaborate to cognition of cognition

our or, to by

of emotion the "modulating

LeDoux's

phrase These refers

emotion." Damasio47 emotional possible somatic

combined to as

cognitive-emotion markers." us would The to anticipate "feel," and

categories stored how thus

are what cognitive/ the effect of the

"somatic enables

knowledge alternative markers as aids

decisions

to employ

to decision-making.48 model form acknowledges of knowledge, add-on. and the the be

The

categorical-motivation as the dominant as an

sensory-perceptual intellectual / linguistic

evolutionary

It should

borne inmind that the hominid/human

47 A. R. Damasio, "A Second Chance for Emotion." 48 W. A.Whitfield, G. Lindgaardand T. Aestheticswithin an "Integrating and Evolutionary Psychological Framework," Ergonomics (Special Issue: "Theoretical Issues inErgonomics Science") (inpress). 16 and cated system: 50,000 years ago. Language is an

brain evolved over more

to a highly It does not

than threemillion years. It invented language between 200,000

add-on sophisti replace the resources essential for sensory-perceptual-emotional language simply system provides found system. additional Language processing perpetuate

processing is not

that the original survival:

useful.

sensory-perceptual-emotional knowledge, we

is. In privileging delusion of

language-based

Descartes's

Design Issues: Volume 21, Number 1Winter 2005

"I think

therefore

I am."

Damasio

a neurophysiological
in the form of object processes ena. A that underpin hierarchy

powerfully we

undermines

this from

Also, in privileging the cultural standpoint.49

analysis, overlook as exists the more fundamental phenom knowledge sensory-perceptual from

of knowledge and from

the sensory-perceptual The cultural is rather

to the linguistic,

this to the cultural.

with the fundamental sensory-perceptual like the tip of the iceberg,

knowledge The cultural designed Equally on For purely structure underpinning an it. model involving cultural accommodates the setting moves modes social at a away meaning the of time. categorical-motivation as add-on a given

domain objects

within

particular

important, linguistic are common

however, and reticent to much

the model

from a reliance

deconstructive in accepting

of understanding. hegemony it provides of

those who

the absolute theorizing, as

language an

contemporary And this

alternative brain

perspective. and our

perspective

acknowledges the fundamental of the world.

the human agent

its processing understanding

strategies and

determining

evaluation

It is surprising indeed thatno less an object than thehuman brain

appears to be overlooked Perhaps the main in the construction implication of of design the theory. categorical-motiva

tionmodel
for adding a process

fordesigners is that they share with artists a concern

to our sensory-perceptual elaboration, phenomena. knowledge. and They do so by of refinement, construction of a range

of sensory-perceptual refers to new

"Knowledge," experiences

in this context, that designers are

sensory-perceptual

adept at creating. This is achieved by the interweaving of new

variants category neural of category knowledge. network Within model this, knowledge Martindale involving stimuli than within the constraints this rather activation prototypic stimuli. of existing in a represents the hedonic that are more less typical neatly

of cogni generate

tive units. greater

cognitive

activation

In application model and and

to aesthetic involving episodic 49 A. R. Damasio, Descartes's Error: Human Brain Emotion, Reason, and the (NewYork:Grosset/Putnam,1994). 50 C. Martindale, "Aesthetics, and Psychobiology, Cognition" in The FoundationsofAesthetics,Art, and Education, F.H. Farleyand R. W. Neperud, eds. (New York:Praeger, 1988). artists ate. The design,"

experience, activation analyzers."50

this has of a range This

evolved

into a multifaceted gnostic, in which

of "sensory,

semantic, designers content

is the domain

operate. notion

Within

this, the concept as

of "knowledge" has

is appropri of the

of "intellectual,"

in the "intellectual the hallmark

is a misnomer.

"Intellectual"

cognition: itdeceptively leads design into something that it is not,

while overlooking the significance of what it is. Does

of linguistic

ics need the imprimaturof the apparently intellectual?Does aisth?sis need justification fromno?sisl

design

aesthet

Design Issues: Volume 21, Number 1Winter 2005

17