I love this, this should be taught on all courses to give more technologically and "wrong or right" thinking people a better understanding of designers and the importance of design, especially at this revolutionary moment in time where design is so important! :)
I really enjoyed this speech. One of the few videos that consistently maintained my attention throughout. I'm currently in the process of writing a speech about art and specifically aesthetics in philosophy and I want to tackle the mistrust people have with art. I actually agree that a lot of art is sort of made up and disingenuine, but this talk was fascinating because I have been searching for a good way to rationalise beauty in an objective way. Thanks for this.
i would add that with art, besides the beauty aspect there is also another important element. context[to the viewer]. if you can successfully apply supreme beauty AND context, you just might have something ;)
Great talk. I like the case studies and the concluding soundbite that beauty is instrumentally reliable. I agree that the 'Everyday aesthetic' of the iPhone and its UI has been a big factor in its success. (To those that like to dismiss beauty as just being in the eye of the beholder, please consider the role of mass consensus. Think of the number of people that rate the Taj Mahal, Mona Lisa, and Taylor Swift's music.)
There should be not distinction between good design and good engineering. The most obvious example for this is in architecture and structural engineering.
Very intelligent presenter and deeply interesting topic. That being said, I wish the presentation had a better structure/storytelling, I think it struggles to generate a line of thinking that helps the viewer learn the topic.
I work a lot with the Proto-Indo-European languages and culture, and I have been tussling with a concept the PIEs had, the Xartus (more correctly, *H2/4ertus). It describes the principle and guiding force behind everything, the wyrd, the dharma. Since it comes from the root *H2/4er-, which means "to fit together in an appropriate and aesthetically pleasing manner," it could be translated as "harmony," or "dovetailing." This is the central truth of PIE religion and ideology. The question that's been nagging at me is why "appropriate manner" and "aesthetically pleasing manner" should in some way be considered the same thing. The Greek word "arete," excellence," comes from the same root. Arete could be found in everything, from governing to art to athletics, and beyond. It is the word translated incorrectly as "virtue." I think we can read this meaning back into Xartus, and define it as "the Excellent." But by this standard an oil platform and the Mona Lisa both possess arete, both possess Excellence, both are manifestations of the Xartus. How can that be? So anyway, that's what's running circles in my mind these days. This talk helped me move a little towards a solution. As an aside, when I was in the Air Force, I got to see a U-2 land and an SR-71 take off, and they were beautiful not just in their form and their abilities, but in the way they performed. The U-2 floated in like a milkweed seed, and the SR-71 moved a relatively short distance down the runway, tilted its nose up, and was gone. Stunning, both of them. I'm pleased that the P-38, which has always been one of my favorite airplanes, was designed by the same company. Makes sense.
but uh how do you measure beauty? What are tools for looking at an object and being more this, less that. Move that up and that other thing symetrical or parallel or whatever?
on that aspect (or a aspect) we should be able to measure the best design as beauty or the most advanced strategy in a specific combination as beautiful. like the formula one cars are beautiful in or as most advanced mechanics in wheels machines or as the fastest transportation on asphalt roads from a point to another. or to be measured similar as the golden ratio.
Perhaps through lots of viewing from many people on different design options? Generally, symmetry is one way to measure, but more important balance. if the movement and energy on both sides of the piece settle each other and feel like one side is not heavier than the other.
As a Professor of Design, I have to say I strongly disagree with Mark. The 'sublime' is not a new topic, it was addressed by the classical philosophers. One of the key ideas in the sublime is terror - the notion that the great power of mathematics is also terrifying. But there is another reason that military warplanes are terrifying -- they are war machines. Their purpose is to kill people. While Mark talks eloquently about the positive aspects of the mathematical sublime, he completely avoids the real work of artists - which is very often on messages of social dynamics and human meaning. Mathematics and power is just one aspect of the sublime, as Burke says the sublime is also "terrifying".
Good point professor, I don't think a lot of people know about the philosophical points of aesthetics from the past. But I am glad he started to accept beauty can also be found in a mathematical equation.
I love this, this should be taught on all courses to give more technologically and "wrong or right" thinking people a better understanding of designers and the importance of design, especially at this revolutionary moment in time where design is so important! :)
I really enjoyed this speech. One of the few videos that consistently maintained my attention throughout. I'm currently in the process of writing a speech about art and specifically aesthetics in philosophy and I want to tackle the mistrust people have with art. I actually agree that a lot of art is sort of made up and disingenuine, but this talk was fascinating because I have been searching for a good way to rationalise beauty in an objective way. Thanks for this.
i would add that with art, besides the beauty aspect there is also another important element. context[to the viewer]. if you can successfully apply supreme beauty AND context, you just might have something ;)
Would you like to share your thoughts and the eventual write up with me, please? I would like to read it.
Thanks in anticipation.
Yeah I think this was the first Ted talk I immediately watched again
Great talk. I like the case studies and the concluding soundbite that beauty is instrumentally reliable. I agree that the 'Everyday aesthetic' of the iPhone and its UI has been a big factor in its success.
(To those that like to dismiss beauty as just being in the eye of the beholder, please consider the role of mass consensus. Think of the number of people that rate the Taj Mahal, Mona Lisa, and Taylor Swift's music.)
I relate to this video on a primal level. I hope I can take a similar journey and kindle a scientific spirit of design in myself
There should be not distinction between good design and good engineering. The most obvious example for this is in architecture and structural engineering.
Golden Ratio dude
Very intelligent presenter and deeply interesting topic. That being said, I wish the presentation had a better structure/storytelling, I think it struggles to generate a line of thinking that helps the viewer learn the topic.
Very good topic regarding beauty designs, entertaining to watch and listen until the end,, ❤️👍
love this
I work a lot with the Proto-Indo-European languages and culture, and I have been tussling with a concept the PIEs had, the Xartus (more correctly, *H2/4ertus). It describes the principle and guiding force behind everything, the wyrd, the dharma. Since it comes from the root *H2/4er-, which means "to fit together in an appropriate and aesthetically pleasing manner," it could be translated as "harmony," or "dovetailing." This is the central truth of PIE religion and ideology. The question that's been nagging at me is why "appropriate manner" and "aesthetically pleasing manner" should in some way be considered the same thing. The Greek word "arete," excellence," comes from the same root. Arete could be found in everything, from governing to art to athletics, and beyond. It is the word translated incorrectly as "virtue." I think we can read this meaning back into Xartus, and define it as "the Excellent." But by this standard an oil platform and the Mona Lisa both possess arete, both possess Excellence, both are manifestations of the Xartus. How can that be?
So anyway, that's what's running circles in my mind these days. This talk helped me move a little towards a solution.
As an aside, when I was in the Air Force, I got to see a U-2 land and an SR-71 take off, and they were beautiful not just in their form and their abilities, but in the way they performed. The U-2 floated in like a milkweed seed, and the SR-71 moved a relatively short distance down the runway, tilted its nose up, and was gone. Stunning, both of them. I'm pleased that the P-38, which has always been one of my favorite airplanes, was designed by the same company. Makes sense.
but uh how do you measure beauty? What are tools for looking at an object and being more this, less that. Move that up and that other thing symetrical or parallel or whatever?
Beauty is to be felt, not spelt :)
on that aspect (or a aspect) we should be able to measure the best design as beauty or the most advanced strategy in a specific combination as beautiful. like the formula one cars are beautiful in or as most advanced mechanics in wheels machines or as the fastest transportation on asphalt roads from a point to another. or to be measured similar as the golden ratio.
Perhaps through lots of viewing from many people on different design options? Generally, symmetry is one way to measure, but more important balance. if the movement and energy on both sides of the piece settle each other and feel like one side is not heavier than the other.
That's the question that i wanted to ask. Have you any idea about it ?
is he saying that 'art' is 'linked' to creative function by nature?
As a Professor of Design, I have to say I strongly disagree with Mark. The 'sublime' is not a new topic, it was addressed by the classical philosophers. One of the key ideas in the sublime is terror - the notion that the great power of mathematics is also terrifying. But there is another reason that military warplanes are terrifying -- they are war machines. Their purpose is to kill people. While Mark talks eloquently about the positive aspects of the mathematical sublime, he completely avoids the real work of artists - which is very often on messages of social dynamics and human meaning. Mathematics and power is just one aspect of the sublime, as Burke says the sublime is also "terrifying".
Good point professor, I don't think a lot of people know about the philosophical points of aesthetics from the past. But I am glad he started to accept beauty can also be found in a mathematical equation.
did anyone notice the dude rp at 2:59 ?
I thought we’re talking about humane beauty not mechanical beauty artificial beauty just Apple products I’m ending it here and not in five minutes in