Editorial: Estética en la Interacción

Abstract

as que solo pueden ser categorizadas como datos o información, sino que necesitamos entenderlo como un ensamblaje de objetos desde una perspectiva encarnada». El segundo paradigma que Castañeda Arredondo cuestiona es el conductual. Si la interfaz es Moving away from the ideal of transparency and the tendency to seek pleasant and fun interactions, Claudia Núñez Pacheco analyzes the aesthetic potential of obstacles and breakdowns, demonstrating that these can lead to equally meaningful experiences. Conceiving design as a situated activity, Núñez Pacheco emphasizes the embodied, sensory, and emotional dimension of aesthetic experiences. Like other designers who explore the potential of Pragmatic Aesthetic, Núñez Pacheco builds from John Dewey, one of the founders of philosophical pragmatism, and draws a bridge between his ideas and Eugene Gendlin’s philosophy of the implicit, which explains the relations between the body and meaning. From Gendlin’s process model, Dewey’s reflections on the rhythmic flow of aesthetic experience and Heidegger’s concept of equipment, Núñez Pacheco builds a solid conceptual framework that allows her to discuss “how aesthetic experiences unfold according to different types of embodied relations with technology artifacts.” Also Cecilia Castañeda Arredondo questions some of the interaction paradigms. First, the mediating function attributed to the interface. Her proposal is that graphic interfaces are an array of digital objects that are structured in a matrix, that is, dynamic objects in constant flux. Designing interfaces as if they were mere mediating elements that can be presented to the user through the aesthetics of the metaphor would be inconvenient since the interfaces not only operate at a symbolic level but also involve embodied experiential processes. In her words, “we cannot understand this conglomerate as abstract entities that can only be categorized as data or information. In fact, we need to understand it as an arrangement of objects from an embodied perspective.” The second paradigm questioned by Castañeda Arredondo is the behavioral one. If the interface is an array of digital objects, and not a technical object as some suppose, it would not be appropriate to think of it as an extension of the mind that can be operated Renato BeRna s coni J uan c aRlo s oRti z nicolá s J ungKy o on y o on angélic a M aRtínez de la Peña Editorial 11 un arreglo de objetos digitales, y no un objeto técnico como se ha venido creyendo, no sería adecuado pensar que es solo una extensión de nuestra mente y que, como tal, pueda ser operada a través de planteamientos conductuales. Básicamente, porque una matriz de objetos digitales en permanente flujo requiere un soporte narrativo abierto a la divergencia y a la participación activa. En definitiva, Castañeda Arredondo plantea que los diseñadores de interfaces están ante el desafío de «diseñar para performar la materialidad de una red en constante flujo». Por su parte, Paulina Sierra Salazar señala que es necesario diseñar interfaces más avanzadas que permitan organizar sistemas dinámicos y colaborativos de información. El motivo es que ya no interactuamos con sistemas autopoiéticos, sino más bien con sistemas de naturaleza sympoiética. Para Sierra, el concepto de sympoiesis ―que propusiera Beth Dempster justamente como alternativa a la idea de autopoiesis― es más adecuado para definir sistemas complejos como los medios digitales ya que estos se han transformado en sistemas desregulados que se producen colectivamente y no están cerrados operacionalmente sino abiertos. Lo relevante de este giro es que requerirá un tipo de interacción más interdependiente que incluso podría dejar obsoleta la propia idea de interacción, ya que esta supone sistemas autónomos separados. Siguiendo a Barad, Paulina Sierra Salazar sostiene que en realidad estamos “enredados” con artefactos interactivos que controlan nuestros entornos y leen nuestros comportamientos, a tal punto que tal vez ya no podamos separarnos de ellos. Esta interdependencia requerirá no solo desarrollar nuevos modos de interacción estética sino también diseñar experiencias “intra-activas” «sostenibles, arraigadas, predecibles y personalizables». En este sentido, el desafío es gestionar la inmediatez a través de herramientas interactivas simultáneas que no dependan de la producción de delimitaciones, sino que mejoren el estado “junto con”, promoviendo la discusión colectiva continua, las relaciones complejas y dinámicas, la retroalimentación, la cooperación y el comportamiento sinérgico. Pero Sierra through behavioral approaches. Basically, because an array of digital objects in constant flow requires narrative support open to divergence and active participation. In short, Castañeda Arredondo argues that interface designers face the challenge of “designing to perform the materiality of a network in constant flow.” For her part, Paulina Sierra Salazar points out that it is necessary to design more advanced interfaces that allow the organization of dynamic and collaborative systems of information. The reason is that we no longer interact with autopoietic systems, but rather with sympoietic systems. For Sierra, the concept of sympoiesis ‒ posed by Beth Dempster as an alternative for the idea of autopoiesis ‒ is more suitable for defining complex systems such as digital media, since these have been transformed into de-regulated, collectively-produced, and open (rather than operationally-closed) systems. The relevant thing about this shift is that it will require a more interdependent type of interaction that could even make the idea of interaction obsolete since this involves separate autonomous systems. Following Barad, Paulina Sierra Salazar argues that we are actually ‘entangled’ with interactive artifacts that control our environments and read our behaviors, to the point that we may no longer be able to separate ourselves from them. This interdependence will require not only the development of new modes of aesthetic interaction but also the design of “sustainable, rooted, predictable, and customizable intra-active experiences.” In this sense, the challenge is to manage immediacy through simultaneous interactive tools that do not depend on the production of boundaries but instead improve the state of ‘withness’, promoting collective ongoing discussion, complex and dynamic relations, feedback, cooperation, and synergistic behavior. But Sierra warns that “the most radical shift may come from the fact that ‘everything’ we can interact with has the vibrant potential of becoming a service.” Diseña 15. aGOsTO 2019 | PP. 4 1 5 Diseña 15. aUGUsT 2019 | PP. 4 1 5 12 Due to their characteristics (conceptual richness, articulation with the literature, discursive or speculative character, and appropriation of categories and ideas from philosophy and humanities, among others), the three contributions we have just visited compose a set within this special edition. Irma Hernández López’s piece is a demonstration of the potential of applying aesthetics of interaction principles to other areas of design. Hernández López addresses the serious problem that many victims of crime suffer when they go to public institutions to seek justice. Instead of being properly supported, they are criminalized and psychologically abused by officials who are not sensitive to their condition or poorly prepared to adequately fulfill their duties, to the point that victims prefer to give up and to abandon their allegations. Hernández López makes a theoretical-exploratory approach that aims to recognize factors and guidelines that would allow the design of a process of ‘aesthetic attention’ to the victims capable of reducing revictimization. Together with the principles of aesthetics in interaction, the basic postulates of user-centered design are decisive in this regard. Her proposal to design aesthetic attention depends on how to recognize what the aesthetic object is in this case and how it materializes, what are the temporal and spatial conditions of the victim’s attention, and what is the victim’s role as a depositary of that aesthetic object. This last question is fundamental, since “aesthetic attention seeks a change of perspective: the victim does not receive attention but participates in it.” Diego Alatorre Guzmán explores the potential of games “as a didactic strategy for design learning.” Following Flusser, he considers the game to be a model for thinking about the world, a tool for questioning reality. This is particularly significant since his purpose is for students to practice design critically and responsibly, generating products that intervene in human behavior. Thus, the game advierte que «el cambio más radical puede provenir del hecho de que en “todo” aquello con lo que podemos interactuar existe el emocionante potencial de un servicio». Por sus características (riqueza conceptual, articulación con la literatura, carácter discursivo o especulativo y apropiación de categorías e ideas provenientes de la filosofía y las humanidades, entre otras), las tres contribuciones que acabamos de reseñar componen un conjunto al interior de esta edición especial. El trabajo de Irma Hernández López constituye una demostración del potencial que tiene aplicar los principios de la estética en la interacción a otros ámbitos del diseño. Hernández López aborda el grave problema que sufren muchas víctimas de delitos cuando acuden a las instituciones del Estado a buscar justicia: en lugar de ser acogidas, son criminalizadas y maltratadas sicológicamente por funcionarios insensibles o poco preparados para cumplir adecuadamente su labor, a tal punto que las víctimas prefieren desistir y dejar inconclusos los procesos. Hernández López hace un planteamiento teórico-exploratorio que tiene como objetivo reconocer factores y lineamientos que permitirían diseñar un proceso de “atención estética” a las víctimas que redunde en reducir la revictimización