Aesthetic framework
4.6 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR USE
4.6.1 ASSESSMENT Engage the user group in open discussion This is how you get to know who you are designing for, what their priorities and values are, and what their experience is of the situation they are dealing with. The interviews from Chapter 3 are an elaborate example of what this can look like.
The aesthetic framework is not context-specific and therefore cannot be applied in isolation, so here I recommend how to use it to design for a site. Insights gained over the course of this thesis inform the recommendations. Returning to this thesis’ overarching ambition, which is to use a landscape intervention to foster engagement with environmental challenges, I argue that engagement should be encouraged during the design process. Conventionally, subjective experience is undervalued in planning and design approaches. If decisionmakers want to garner genuine empathy and engagement from those that will interact with the proposed measure/design, approaches should be cautious of prescriptive “solutions” and incorporate subjectivity (Bowring, 2016). To prescribe a landscape design like a doctor prescribes medication could risk being rejected by the community that might not have even asked for it. If stakeholders are involved, they can gain fulfillment and perhaps even feel a sense of relief that contribute (Lertzman, 2015). Additionally, I learned that local knowledge and support is highly valuable for the design outcome.
User-informed site analysis The site analysis should be partly informed by stakeholders and the user group. I experienced the benefits of learning from the interviewees in Aoraki/Mt. Cook National Park. They provided me with new knowledge and insights, such as specific on-site hazards, seasonal differences, local culture, and relevant topics, amongst others (see Section 5.2 for this thesis’ site analysis). Identify opportunities and challenges for achieving the three mental states Identify the presence, potential presence, or opposition to the aesthetic properties around and on site (“opposites” described in Section 4.5.1). Take the example of “otherworldly space”: is there a designated otherworldly space or does the space blur into the spaces around it? Then inquire into specific opportunities and challenges, so that design can respond in the best way for that particular site. Take the example of “solemn tranquility” in Aoraki/ Mt. Cook National Park: helicopters are a specific challenge for this aesthetic property, because they create noise. The design will have to respond to the noise in some way, because it inhibits the user’s ability to concentrate.
I recommend a two part process, first assessment and then design (this format is loosely inspired by an approach in another thesis (Kooijmans, 2018)). Within “assessment” or “design”, the steps are not numbered and do not have to strictly be applied in sequence. An approach is presented primarily to stress the importance of engaging stakeholders in the design process and to respond to site-specific challenges and opportunities. Although the process can and should evolve differently for each project, the design should have a clear purpose and consider the site’s inherent opportunities and challenges. It should mirror and amplify peoples’ pre-existing sentiments and invite them to progress into a state of melancholic contemplation. It is assumed that the designer has “purpose, focus, and purity of mind”, and an approximate melancholic site prior to taking the following steps:
42
