It is sometimes thought that interpreting images of functional artefacts, such as a food processor or digital camera, is easier than interpreting works of fine art, be they painted, sculpted, photographed, or otherwise. At least the utilitarian, functional dimensions of the artefacts might provide a common basis for understanding. Without any comparable basis in the practical, fine art artefacts are judged to be far less contained.

Are the words functional, utilitarian, and practical problematic here?  And what do these descriptions mean for interaction design, where all of those are balled into one?  We can think about this using Clarke’s example of the digital camera:

Clarke uses the digital camera as an artefact that can may have a common starting ground for interpretation because it has a generally agreed upon function: taking pictures. This could be said about many things that we might design or encounter in HCI/d. However, one could also look at the digital camera an artefact of art, insomuch that it makes a statement about something (be it an unspoken position in popular culture, or unknown designerly biases that affect it shape and functionality), or that it is meant to be experienced in sort of the same way that art is meant to be experienced.

We could also interpret the digital camera as not the physical camera itself, but all the interactions the user might go through (using memory cards, carrying the camera around the neck, viewing pictures on the computer, etc.), or the ways in which ownership and usage of the camera change the user’s life (purchasing professional photo editing software, upgrading the computer run the software, going outside more to use the camera, attending more weddings, becoming obsessed with Flickr, etc.).

So the reason I state all that is that Clarke seems to suggest that there are two ways to interpret things: from a utilitarian point of view, and from an artistic point of view. The question I pose is when it comes to interaction design critique, does this hold true? Or is interaction design in a unique position to necessitate both, or something else that wasn’t said here?

While those are admittedly straw-man statements, I feel that they do have a hint of truth in the field of HCI.  I myself feel that way at times, but I am beginning to understand what I will gain from a deep study of aesthetics and critical theory.  The goal isn’t to replace all of the inspirational pictures on the walls of the design space with academic papers, but to provide me (the designer) with new perspectives to view those pictures through.  By that I mean that the point of this approach (and of this class) isn’t to turn me into a philosophy-spewing humanities fueled machine, but to internalize some of the material so that I cultivate better designerly judgment.