Humanity is not an aesthetic: a response to Design…
1 reactions
Humanity is not an aesthetic: a response to Design Theory’s “Why Nothing Looks Cool Anymore”
A response to John Mauriello / Design Theory’s video, which was shared here recently: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgjXjPP\_p3s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgjXjPP_p3s
John, I don’t like the Ferrari Luce either. But I think your argument is dangerous. It turns dissatisfaction with an aesthetic into a diagnosis of an inhuman future. That connection needs evidence, not just a compelling narrative. The danger I see is teaching viewers to mistake practical accommodation and reduced friction for an erosion of humanity.
Take the OXO products I noticed early in your video. I love my OXO peeler because it’s comfortable, controllable, and makes me feel safer using it. What good is a beautiful peeler if its handle hurts your hands? Ergonomics reaches the heights of humanistic design; that’s what it is for. Function doesn’t diminish the emotional experience; it creates it. Somebody considered the person holding it. You acknowledge the ease useful products provide, but I think you underestimate its human significance.
As an autistic person, accommodation matters to me. Convenience isn’t necessarily submission; it can be independence. In a world of limited materials, energy, labor, and money, efficiency can let more people participate, although it cannot guarantee fair distribution. Optimizing a product to demand less from its user is not the same as optimizing a business to extract more from them. Your criticism of attention capture matters. Useful accommodation deserves to be distinguished from it. Nor is efficiency synonymous with a minimalist appearance.
My objection to Jony Ive’s thin MacBooks was precisely that, to me, an aesthetic ideal overruled practical needs. The answer was a more useful computer, not a more decorative one. Apple’s 2021 MacBook Pro redesign brought back physical function keys, HDMI, an SD card slot, and MagSafe, alongside a redesigned thermal system. Those are priorities I value. Its capabilities also reflect Apple silicon and other engineering changes, not simply a thicker enclosure. Enduring usefulness matters more to me than an object announcing its personality. My criticism is of those design priorities, not minimalism itself.
Your Cyberpunk example reveals another possibility. You acknowledge that its vehicles escape many physical constraints, but their existence isn’t merely inspiration for something we might eventually manufacture. Those designers have already created a real human experience. I experienced it too. Their cars don’t need to become physical luxury goods for that achievement to count. Digital worlds have hardware, energy, labor, and access costs, but they let people explore elaborate designs without manufacturing every object they encounter. A visually quiet tool can open an extraordinarily expressive world—something your praise of the iPhone as a portal already recognizes.
I share your concern for user agency, including repairability and tools that protect attention. I want the physical world to be beautiful too. But a humanitarian vision must account for people who can’t absorb additional cost, complexity, or discomfort—not just those who find their surroundings insufficiently expressive. My preferred future combines useful, accessible physical products with expanding opportunities for expression, including digital ones. Judge it by who can participate and what people can do, not whether its objects match a preferred aesthetic. Sometimes the most humane design makes the object less demanding and the person using it more capable.
Where do you draw the line between convenience that diminishes agency and convenience that increases independence?
Product sources:
OXO: https://www.oxo.com/blog/behind-the-scenes/behind-design-oxos-iconic-good-grips-handles
Apple: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2021/10/apple-unveils-game-changing-macbook-pro/
#art
source
A response to John Mauriello / Design Theory’s video, which was shared here recently: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgjXjPP\_p3s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgjXjPP_p3s
John, I don’t like the Ferrari Luce either. But I think your argument is dangerous. It turns dissatisfaction with an aesthetic into a diagnosis of an inhuman future. That connection needs evidence, not just a compelling narrative. The danger I see is teaching viewers to mistake practical accommodation and reduced friction for an erosion of humanity.
Take the OXO products I noticed early in your video. I love my OXO peeler because it’s comfortable, controllable, and makes me feel safer using it. What good is a beautiful peeler if its handle hurts your hands? Ergonomics reaches the heights of humanistic design; that’s what it is for. Function doesn’t diminish the emotional experience; it creates it. Somebody considered the person holding it. You acknowledge the ease useful products provide, but I think you underestimate its human significance.
As an autistic person, accommodation matters to me. Convenience isn’t necessarily submission; it can be independence. In a world of limited materials, energy, labor, and money, efficiency can let more people participate, although it cannot guarantee fair distribution. Optimizing a product to demand less from its user is not the same as optimizing a business to extract more from them. Your criticism of attention capture matters. Useful accommodation deserves to be distinguished from it. Nor is efficiency synonymous with a minimalist appearance.
My objection to Jony Ive’s thin MacBooks was precisely that, to me, an aesthetic ideal overruled practical needs. The answer was a more useful computer, not a more decorative one. Apple’s 2021 MacBook Pro redesign brought back physical function keys, HDMI, an SD card slot, and MagSafe, alongside a redesigned thermal system. Those are priorities I value. Its capabilities also reflect Apple silicon and other engineering changes, not simply a thicker enclosure. Enduring usefulness matters more to me than an object announcing its personality. My criticism is of those design priorities, not minimalism itself.
Your Cyberpunk example reveals another possibility. You acknowledge that its vehicles escape many physical constraints, but their existence isn’t merely inspiration for something we might eventually manufacture. Those designers have already created a real human experience. I experienced it too. Their cars don’t need to become physical luxury goods for that achievement to count. Digital worlds have hardware, energy, labor, and access costs, but they let people explore elaborate designs without manufacturing every object they encounter. A visually quiet tool can open an extraordinarily expressive world—something your praise of the iPhone as a portal already recognizes.
I share your concern for user agency, including repairability and tools that protect attention. I want the physical world to be beautiful too. But a humanitarian vision must account for people who can’t absorb additional cost, complexity, or discomfort—not just those who find their surroundings insufficiently expressive. My preferred future combines useful, accessible physical products with expanding opportunities for expression, including digital ones. Judge it by who can participate and what people can do, not whether its objects match a preferred aesthetic. Sometimes the most humane design makes the object less demanding and the person using it more capable.
Where do you draw the line between convenience that diminishes agency and convenience that increases independence?
Product sources:
OXO: https://www.oxo.com/blog/behind-the-scenes/behind-design-oxos-iconic-good-grips-handles
Apple: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2021/10/apple-unveils-game-changing-macbook-pro/
#art
source
1
| 2,000 mlx | |
| 3 | |
| 1 |