Category Archives: Design

The Circular Harvest — How Systems Engineering and Design Thinking Are Rewriting the Future of Farming

by Braden Kelley and Art Inteligencia

I. Introduction: The Industrialist in the Mud

For generations, the global imagination has romanticized agriculture. We cling to a nostalgic, cottage-industry myth of farming—one filled with rustic barns, predictable seasons, and manual labor. But as a futurist and innovation strategist, I look at the reality of our current global landscape and see a system under immense friction. Our traditional models of food production are increasingly vulnerable to climate volatility, geopolitical shifts, and severe supply chain disruptions.

Take the United Kingdom’s strawberry market as a prime case study. Historically, during the bleak winter months, the UK has been forced to import roughly 90% of its strawberries. This reliance creates a massive carbon footprint, accumulating thousands of unnecessary air miles just to place fresh fruit on supermarket shelves. It is a textbook example of a broken user experience within our food ecosystem.

The Agri-Tech Paradigm Shift

True innovation occurs when we challenge these deeply entrenched systemic flaws. This is precisely what unfolded when Sir James Dyson turned his attention to the British countryside. His entry into agriculture was not a billionaire’s eccentric hobby; it was a massive, calculated manufacturing scale operation. Today, Dyson Farming spans over 36,000 acres, fundamentally shifting the paradigm of what a modern farm can be.

By treating the field not as a scenic backdrop, but as an advanced production ecosystem, Dyson has proven that high-technology and ecology are entirely symbiotic. He recognized that solving our grandest challenges requires us to ditch nostalgia in favor of relentless, forward-thinking execution.

“Farming is not a cottage-industry, or something quaint and nostalgic; efficient, high-technology agriculture holds many of the keys to our future.”

— Sir James Dyson

II. The Genesis: From Airflow to Agriculture

To understand how a company world-renowned for cyclonic vacuums, digital motors, and hair care ends up producing millions of British strawberries, you have to look past the end product and examine the underlying mindset. True cross-industry innovation happens when we stop defining ourselves by what we make, and start defining ourselves by how we solve problems.

For Sir James Dyson, the connection to the land is deeply personal. Long before he was an industrialist, he grew up in an agricultural community in North Norfolk. His early winters were spent lifting wet potato sacks and hauling brussels sprouts—hard, manual labor that left a lasting impression of the sheer grit required to sustain farming. When he returned to agriculture decades later, he didn’t see a separate world; he saw an industry ripe for the same system optimization principles that drive advanced manufacturing.

The Universal Laws of Engineering

To a systems engineer, a factory floor and an agricultural field are fundamentally governed by the same variables: inputs, throughput, energy transfers, and waste mitigation. Whether you are guiding airflow through a bagless vacuum cleaner or orchestrating the micro-climate around a living organism, the goal is peak operational efficiency.

Dyson looked at traditional farming and spotted classic design friction points: unmitigated environmental dependency, unpredictable yields, high labor inefficiency, and the massive carbon cost of importing out-of-season fruit. It was a broken system screaming for a design thinking intervention.

“Growing things is rather like making things – I am a manufacturer, and I have approached farming from that point of view… A factory should be well designed, well-built and work most efficiently as a machine, using the latest technology for production. The same applies to farming.”

— Sir James Dyson

Solving What Doesn’t Work

The core ethos of Dyson has always been a relentless desire to fix things that are fundamentally broken or inefficient. By exporting core fluiddynamics, automated robotics, and thermodynamic expertise from the laboratory to the greenhouse, Dyson Farming bypassed incremental adjustments. Instead, they designed a predictable, localized agricultural machine capable of operating 365 days a year.

III. The 26-Acre Glasshouse: Bringing Systems Thinking to the Strawberry

In Carrington, Lincolnshire, sits a 26-acre glasshouse that serves as the physical manifestation of Dyson’s systems-led philosophy. This facility is far from a passive greenhouse; it functions as a highly automated, data-driven food laboratory containing upwards of 1.2 million strawberry plants. By controlling every variable—from ambient temperature and humidity to root nutrition and light wavelengths—Dyson has removed the unpredictability of traditional farming, turning strawberry cultivation into a precise, scalable process.

Central to this facility is the implementation of a Hybrid Vertical Growing System (HVGS). Rather than planting traditionally in the ground, rows of strawberries are suspended on advanced, dynamic aluminum rigs that maximize vertical space. These massive structures operate like slow-moving Ferris wheels, rotating the plants to ensure they receive uniform exposure to natural sunlight. By optimizing the three-dimensional footprint of the glasshouse, Dyson Farming generates a 250% increase in yield per square meter compared to traditional flat-field farming methods.

The Integration of Robotics and Automation

Managing over a million plants across a 26-acre footprint requires an entirely new operational framework. Dyson engineers have bridged the gap between agriculture and advanced manufacturing by introducing proprietary automation suites directly to the gutters. Intelligent vision-sensing robots navigate the rows, using machine learning algorithms to calculate the exact color profile and ripeness of individual berries before picking them with absolute precision.

Furthermore, the facility mitigates disease without relying on standard chemical interventions. At night, autonomous rail-guided vehicles traverse the dark aisles, passing targeted ultraviolet (UV-C) light over the foliage to neutralize powdery mildew and mold spores before they can take root. When pests like aphids do emerge, the engineering team deploys biological controls, programmatically releasing predatory insects to establish a natural balance within the micro-climate.

Data-Driven Climate Architecture

Every element of the glasshouse acts as an interconnected sensor node. Advanced climate software dynamically adjusts the glasshouse’s roof vents, internal shading screens, and massive LED growth lamps based on real-time meteorological data. By treating the physical structure as a macro-machine designed to cater to the physiological needs of the plant, Dyson has managed to extend the British strawberry season to a full 12 months, delivering fresh fruit to local markets even in the depths of winter.

IV. The Closed-Loop Ecosystem: The Ultimate Circular Economy

True innovation within complex systems requires us to look beyond immediate outputs and design for industrial symbiosis. A standalone high-tech glasshouse is an engineering achievement; however, if it relies on fossil fuels to maintain its tropical winter temperatures, it fails the test of sustainable experience design. Dyson Farming resolved this challenge by implementing a highly integrated, closed-loop circular economy framework at their Carrington site.

The 26-acre strawberry glasshouse does not burden the local energy grid. Instead, it operates adjacent to a massive, industrial-scale Anaerobic Digestion (AD) plant. This facility processes organic matter—primarily energy crops grown on the surrounding farm alongside organic crop waste from the glasshouse itself—breaking it down using specialized bacteria to produce biogas. This gas is then captured and utilized to drive massive turbines, generating enough clean electricity to power more than 10,000 homes.

The Thermodynamic Cascade

In a standard power plant, the massive amount of heat generated by electricity production is lost to the atmosphere as waste. Dyson’s engineering team viewed this thermal loss as an untapped input. They designed a closed system of insulated subterranean piping to capture this surplus heat from the AD plant’s generators, channeling it directly into the glasshouse structure. This steady, recycled thermal energy maintains the internal climate at an optimal 18–20°C even when outdoor temperatures drop below freezing.

The circularity extends deep into the byproduct architecture of the process:

Renewable Heat: The thermal energy from the generator cooling systems replaces fossil-fuel heating, mitigating thousands of tons of carbon emissions.
Nutrient Digestion: The solid and liquid organic residue left over after anaerobic digestion—known as digestate—is treated and used as a nutrient-dense organic fertilizer across Dyson’s 36,000 acres of open-field farming, eliminating the need for synthetic, petroleum-derived fertilizers.
Carbon Capture: Carbon dioxide emissions from the gas engines are cleaned, cooled, and pumped directly into the glasshouse to accelerate plant photosynthesis during daylight hours.
Hydrological Security: The glasshouse roof acts as a massive rain catchment system, funneling water into a 50-million-gallon local lagoon to supply the precise, closed-loop drip irrigation network.

“It might seem odd for an industrialist who makes vacuum cleaners, hairdryers and robotics to be interested in farming but I see it as an extension of that. This is all about machinery, mechanics and science improving things, it’s regenerative and it’s the right way to farm.”

— Sir James Dyson

Designing Out the Concept of Waste

By connecting these disparate operational layers—thermodynamics, microbiology, mechanical engineering, and botany—Dyson Farming has created a highly resilient agricultural machine. This ecosystem model proves that the future of sustainability doesn’t lie in reducing our output, but in optimizing the interconnected loops between our inputs, resources, and environments.

V. Futurology & The Human Element: The Future of the Agronomist

When analyzing the future of labor and automation, my strategic foresight research often highlights a concept I call the AI Soft Landing—the intentional transition where automation doesn’t displace the human workforce, but rather elevates it to perform higher-value, more rewarding roles. Agriculture is on the absolute frontline of this shift. Globally, the farming sector faces a profound demographic crisis; in the UK, the average age of an agricultural worker hovers around 59 years old. By shifting the paradigm from manual labor to high-technology operations, Dyson Farming has effectively dropped their average workforce age to 40, turning farming into a highly attractive destination for the next generation of talent.

The employee experience at a modern agri-tech facility looks completely different than it did a generation ago. The workforce is no longer composed solely of manual pickers working under unpredictable skies; instead, the glasshouse is managed by data analysts, drone operators, software engineers, and advanced agronomists. Humans work alongside machine intelligence, using data dashboards to monitor sap flow, track nutrient profiles, and optimize robotic picking schedules. We are witnessing the birth of a new professional class: the tech-driven land steward.

Biodiversity as an Engineering KPI

A true human-centered innovation framework recognizes that humanity cannot thrive unless the surrounding natural ecosystem thrives with it. In a traditional industrial farming setup, maximizing yield often comes at the direct expense of local biodiversity. Dyson’s systems-engineering approach treats the surrounding environment not as an external variable, but as a critical part of the macro-machine that must be carefully maintained.

Across their expansive holdings, biodiversity metrics are tracked with the same rigor as manufacturing outputs. The operation actively manages over 400 kilometers of native hedgerows, establishes extensive wildflower margins to support wild pollinators, and constructs dedicated nesting boxes for barn owls and birds of prey. By utilizing automated data collection and drone surveying, the engineering teams treat soil health, water purity, and wildlife populations as vital key performance indicators (KPIs) of the farm’s long-term commercial sustainability.

“Dyson Farming is developing new approaches to efficient, high-technology agriculture, which we hope will lead to a commercially sustainable future… Sustainable food production, food security and the environment are vital to the nation’s health and the nation’s economy.”

— Sir James Dyson

The Legacy of Participatory Ecosystems

Ultimately, this model proves that top-down design is obsolete in complex ecological and economic systems. By inviting engineers, biologists, and local communities to co-create a localized food production system, Dyson Farming demonstrates how strategic foresight can be grounded in practical, scalable realities. They are redefining what it means to be a custodian of the land in the twenty-first century.

VI. Conclusion: The Blueprint for Cross-Disciplinary Innovation

The transformation of Dyson Farming from an experimental project into a high-yielding, circular agricultural powerhouse offers a profound lesson for leadership across all sectors: true breakthrough innovation rarely happens by staying safely inside your comfort zone. It occurs at the intersection of disciplines, when a proven methodology from one industry is boldly exported to completely rewrite the rules of another.

Sir James Dyson did not attempt to alter the fundamental biological mechanics of how a strawberry grows. Instead, he and his engineering teams used systems thinking and human-centered experience design to re-engineer the entire macro-environment surrounding the plant. By connecting thermodynamics, robotics, and microbiology into a cohesive, closed-loop engine, they transformed a volatile, seasonal gamble into a predictable, localized, and commercially viable reality.

The Takeaway for Tomorrow’s Leaders

As we look to the future, the grand challenges of our era—whether in food security, healthcare, or energy infrastructure—will not be solved by siloed thinking. They require an expansive, ecosystem-wide view that treats waste as an unutilized input and views automation as a tool to elevate the human workforce. Dyson Farming serves as a brilliant blueprint for this exact ethos. It proves that when you possess a relentless desire to fix what is broken, bring manufacturing precision to the natural world, and design with the wider ecosystem in mind, you can build a sustainable, resilient future—one system, and one harvest, at a time.

Frequently Asked Questions: Systems Thinking in Agriculture

How does an engineering company like Dyson transition successfully into commercial farming?

Dyson approached agriculture not as a traditional farming operation, but as an advanced manufacturing and systems engineering challenge. By treating a greenhouse or a field exactly like a factory floor, they mapped their existing core competencies—such as fluid dynamics, thermal management, automation, and robotics—directly onto agricultural friction points. This systemic mindset allowed them to optimize inputs, design out waste, and create a highly predictable, climate-resilient growing process.

What exactly makes Dyson Farming’s strawberry greenhouse a “closed-loop” ecosystem?

The 26-acre glasshouse achieved circular sustainability by integrating directly with an adjacent Anaerobic Digestion (AD) plant. The AD plant processes energy crops and organic waste to generate clean electricity for the local grid. Dyson engineers capture the natural by-products of this process: the waste heat is piped back to warm the glasshouse in winter, the captured carbon dioxide is used to accelerate plant photosynthesis, and the nutrient-dense digestate residue replaces synthetic chemicals as an organic fertilizer for the open fields.

How does advanced agricultural automation impact the human workforce and employment?

Instead of completely displacing human workers, advanced automation elevates the employee experience and shifts workforce demographics. By integrating automated vision-sensing picking robots and autonomous UV-C disease-control rovers, Dyson Farming eliminates grueling, repetitive manual labor. This transforms the traditional agricultural role into high-value career paths, attracting a younger generation of data analysts, software developers, drone pilots, and tech-driven agronomists.

Image credits: Gemini

Content Authenticity Statement: The topic area, key elements to focus on, etc. were decisions made by Braden Kelley, with a little help from Google Gemini to clean up the article, add images and create infographics.

Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

Choosing the Best Idea

Leave a reply

The 8-Box Framework for Innovation

Choosing the Best Idea

GUEST POST from Mike Shipulski

We have too many ideas, but too few great ones. We don’t need more ideas, we need a way to choose the best one or two ideas and run them to ground.

Before creating more ideas, make a list of the ones you already have. Put them in two boxes. In Box 1, list the ideas without a video of a functional prototype in action. In Box 2, list the ideas that have a video showing a functional prototype demonstrating the idea in action. For those ideas with a functional prototype and no video, put them in Box 1.

Next, throw away Box 1. If it’s not important enough to make a crude physical prototype and create a simple video, the idea isn’t worth a damn. If someone isn’t willing to carve out the time to make a physical prototype, there’s no emotional energy behind the idea and it should be left to die. And when people complain that it’s unfair to throw away all those good ideas in Box 1, tell them it’s unfair to spend valuable resources talking about ideas that aren’t worthy. And suggest, if they want to have a discussion about an idea, they should build a physical prototype and send you the video. Box 2, or bust.

Next, get the band together and watch the short videos in Box 2, and, as a group, put them in two boxes. In Box 3, put the videos without customers actively using the functional prototype. In Box 4, put the videos with customers actively using the functional prototype.

Next, throw way Box 3. If it’s not important enough to make a trip to an important customer and create a short video, the idea isn’t worth a damn. If you’re not willing to put yourself out there and take the idea to an important customer, the idea is all fizzle and no sizzle. Meaningful ideas take immense personal energy to run through the gauntlet, and without a video of a customer using the functional prototype, there’s not enough energy behind it. And when everyone argues that Box 3 ideas are worth pursuing, tell them to pursue a video showing a most important customer demonstrating the functional prototype.

Next, get the band back together to watch the Box 4 videos. Again, put the videos in two boxes. In Box 5 put the videos where the customer didn’t say what they liked and how they’d use it. In Box 6, put the videos where the customer enthusiastically said what they liked and how they’ll use it.

Next, throw away Box 5. If the customer doesn’t think enough about the prototype to tell you how they’ll use it, it’s because they don’t think much of the idea. And when the group says the customer is wrong or the customer doesn’t understand what the prototype is all about, suggest they create a video where a customer enthusiastically explains how they’d use it.

Next, get the band back in the room and watch the Box 6 videos. Put them in two boxes. In Box 7, put the videos that won’t radically grow the top line. In Box 8, put the videos that will radically grow the top line. Throw away Box 7.

For the videos in Box 8, rank them by the amount of top line growth they will create. Put all the videos back into Box 8, except the video that will create the most top line growth. Do NOT throw away Box 8.

The video in your hand IS your company’s best idea. Immediately charter a project to commercialize the idea. Staff it fully. Add resources until adding resources doesn’t no longer pulls in the launch. Only after the project is fully staffed do you put your hand back into Box 8 to select the next best idea.

Continually evaluate Boxes 1 through 8. Continually throw out the boxes without the right videos. Continually choose the best idea from Box 8. And continually staff the projects fully, or don’t start them.

Choosing the Best Idea Infographic

Image credits: Gemini

Sign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

The Final Frontier of Experience Design

Leave a reply

Sensing the Future via Digital Olfaction

LAST UPDATED: May 15, 2026 at 6:56 PM

GUEST POST from Art Inteligencia

Breaking the Tyranny of the Screen

For decades, digital transformation has been trapped in a flat, two-dimensional paradigm. We have poured billions of dollars into refining pixels, expanding screen real estate, and perfecting spatial audio. Yet, despite these massive leaps in graphics and computational power, our digital interactions remain fundamentally detached from the full spectrum of human biology. We live in a world of glass and glare — a sensory monoculture that prioritizes sight and sound while leaving our other senses completely starved.

The Sensory Deficit in Modern UX/CX

This heavy reliance on visual and auditory stimuli has created a profound sensory deficit in modern user experience (UX) and customer experience (CX) design. Today’s digital landscape feels cold, clinical, and transactional. Whether we are navigating a corporate dashboard, exploring a virtual reality environment, or interacting with an e-commerce platform, the experience is mediated by barriers that keep us isolated from the physical world.

As experience designers and innovation leaders, we must ask ourselves: Have we reached the limits of what sight and sound can achieve for human engagement? When every brand possesses a sleek logo and a curated sonic identity, visual and auditory channels become noisy, overcrowded, and subject to diminishing returns. To truly differentiate and build deeper connections, we must look — and sniff — beyond the screen.

The Emotional Gravity of Smell

This is where the biological reality of olfaction changes everything. Unlike sight and sound, which are processed, filtered, and rationalized by the thalamus before reaching the higher brain, our olfactory system possesses a direct, unmediated highway to the limbic system — the evolutionary ancient seat of memory, emotion, and behavioral drive.

When we smell something, we don’t just process data; we feel it instantly. Scent has an unparalleled emotional gravity. It can trigger deep nostalgia, alter cortisol levels, shift cognitive focus, and inspire trust in a fraction of a second. By ignoring this hardwired human superpower, traditional digital design misses the ultimate tool for meaningful behavioral change, authentic memory retention, and empathetic engagement.

The Core Thesis: Moving Toward Molecular Awareness

Digital olfaction — or olfactory digitization — is not a marketing gimmick, a transient trend, or a sci-fi novelty. It represents a foundational shift toward a molecule-aware world.

By building the infrastructure to digitize, transmit, and synthesize scent data, we are introducing an entirely new layer of contextual intelligence to technology. This infrastructure will fundamentally redefine how humans interact with machines, environments, and brands. It transitions us away from merely manipulating data on a screen and guides us toward a future where technology adapts to, respects, and enriches the holistic human experience.

The Technical Frontier: Mapping the Unmappable

To build a molecule-aware world, we must first solve a massive engineering and translation problem. Nature is a breathtakingly complex designer; the biological nose has spent millions of years evolving to detect microscopic chemical shifts in real time. Replicating this capability in silicon and software requires us to bridge the gap between organic chemistry, data science, and advanced hardware. It is a frontier defined by two distinct structural barriers and a fundamental challenge of standardization.

The Dual Barriers of Machine Olfaction

True digital olfaction requires a system to do two things simultaneously: capture a physical molecule and understand what it means. In the field of machine olfaction, these are known as the two structural limits:

The Limit of Detection: This is a hardware challenge. A digital nose must possess near-single-molecule sensitivity to match the resolution of biological systems. It means engineering sensors capable of registering minuscule traces of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) drifting through highly chaotic, real-world environments.
The Limit of Recognition: This is a software and artificial intelligence challenge. Even if a sensor detects a plume of molecules, it must accurately decode the complex chemical signature. A single familiar scent — like fresh morning coffee or rain on hot asphalt — is rarely a single molecule; it is an intricate dance of dozens of compounds mixed together. Advanced AI classifiers are required to isolate, identify, and categorize these dynamic patterns against a noisy background.

The Standardization Hurdle: Why Smell Isn’t RGB

Why has digital olfaction lagged so far behind computer vision and digital audio? The answer lies in the lack of a universal data standard.

In digital vision, we conquered the world by breaking light down into three primary color channels: Red, Green, and Blue (RGB). By mixing varying intensities of these three channels, a screen can replicate almost any color the human eye can perceive. Audio functions similarly, mapping neatly onto measurable wave frequencies.

Scent possesses no such simplicity. There are no “primary smells” that can be combined to recreate every odor in the universe. Instead, olfaction relies on thousands of unique chemical structures interacting with hundreds of highly specialized biological receptors. Because of this multi-dimensional complexity, the industry currently lacks a consensus on the optimal sensor modality or a unified digital language to catalog the molecular world. We are essentially building the internet of scent before agreeing on the protocol.

The Modern Sensor Toolkit

Despite these hurdles, a sophisticated toolkit of biomachine noses is emerging, moving us away from bulky laboratory equipment and toward nimble, edge-computing devices. Innovation leaders should watch three primary sensor modalities:

Metal-Oxide (MOx) Sensors: These are the reliable workhorses of industrial gas detection. When volatile molecules hit a heated metal-oxide surface, a change in electrical resistance occurs. While excellent for detecting specific gases or simple environmental hazards, traditional MOx arrays often struggle with the nuanced, multi-layered scent profiles required for complex experience design.

Electrochemical Arrays: Operating via chemical reactions that produce measurable electrical currents, these sensors offer excellent sensitivity. They are increasingly deployed in localized industrial settings and specialized quality control loops where target chemical compounds are well-defined.

Peptide-Functionalized Optoelectronic Platforms: This represents the cutting edge of human-centered sensory innovation. By coating silicon-photonic chips with engineered synthetic peptides — microscopic strings of amino acids designed to mimic human scent receptors — these devices combine biological precision with light-based data transmission. When a scent molecule binds to the peptide, it alters the path of light through the chip, creating an instantaneous, highly accurate digital “fingerprint” of the odor.

Human-Centered Experience Design (UX/CX)

As experience designers, our ultimate goal has always been to close the gap between human intent and digital execution. We strive to create environments that feel natural, intuitive, and profoundly resonant. By introducing digital olfaction into our design toolkit, we move past the constraints of traditional user interfaces. We are no longer just designing interfaces for the eyes and fingers; we are designing holistic ecosystems for the entire human nervous system.

From Interfacing to Immersing: Achieving True Presence

The rise of spatial computing, augmented reality (AR), and virtual reality (VR) has exposed the limitations of purely visual and auditory immersion. You can render a flawless, photorealistic forest in a headset, and you can surround the user with the directional audio of wind rustling through leaves — but if the air smells like a sterile corporate office or a plastic headset, the illusion remains fragile. The user’s brain recognizes the sensory mismatch, preventing total cognitive buy-in.

When we integrate localized, precise olfactory cues alongside visual, auditory, and haptic feedback, something extraordinary happens: we unlock a state of genuine presence. Scent anchors the subconscious mind. By introducing the crisp note of pine or the damp aroma of earth at the exact moment the user steps into that virtual forest, we align the sensory inputs. This multisensory harmony deepens engagement, accelerates learning retention in training environments, and elevates digital storytelling from a passive viewing experience to an unforgettable lived event.

Designing Olfactory Brand Identities: The Invisible Logo

For decades, enterprise branding has relied heavily on the visual and the vocal. Organizations spend millions curating color palettes, typography, and sonic logos or jingles. Yet, the most emotionally direct channel for brand equity remains completely unmapped.

In a molecule-aware future, progressive organizations will design intentional, digitized olfactory brand identities. Imagine a luxury automotive brand delivering a subtle, signature digital scent through the cabin’s climate system the moment an autonomous vehicle picks up a passenger. Or consider an upscale hospitality brand synchronizing a digital scent profile across its physical lobbies, its digital unboxing experiences, and its virtual travel previews. Because scent bypasses critical filters and triggers historical nostalgia instantly, these invisible logos build an emotional stickiness that traditional visual advertising simply cannot match. It transforms a transaction into a relationship.

Sensory Assistive Technologies: Empathy in Innovation

Perhaps the most profound application of digital olfaction lies not in commerce, but in empathetic, human-centered innovation. When we look at experience design through the lens of accessibility and care, digital scent becomes a powerful tool for cognitive bridging and behavioral support.

Consider the design of environments for individuals living with advanced dementia or cognitive decline. As cognitive faculties diminish, traditional visual signs and auditory reminders can become confusing or anxiety-inducing. Digital olfaction offers a gentler, more deeply rooted alternative. By utilizing automated, sensory-based design architectures, care facilities can introduce specific ambient scents — such as the distinct aroma of baked bread or fresh citrus — just prior to mealtime. This subconscious cue naturally stimulates appetite, reduces anxiety, and provides a comforting sense of emotional grounding and temporal orientation without requiring complex cognitive processing. Here, innovation ceases to be about technological novelty and becomes an act of profound human empathy.

Strategic Industry Vectors: Where “Digital Sniffing” Disrupts First

While the consumer applications of digital olfaction in gaming and brand marketing grab headlines, the most immediate, high-value disruptions are occurring deep within enterprise operations. Digital sniffing is transitioning from a novelty to critical infrastructure. By operationalizing ambient chemical data, forward-thinking industries are solving legacy challenges that have resisted traditional digitization for decades. The vanguard of this molecular revolution is concentrated across three strategic vectors.

Healthcare & Non-Invasive Diagnostics: The Breath as a Biometric

For centuries, medicine has been a largely reactive discipline — we treat illnesses after symptoms manifest. Digital olfaction turns this paradigm on its head by transforming the human breath into a continuous, non-invasive biometric stream. Every metabolic process in the human body leaves behind a specific trail of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) that escape through our breath, sweat, and fluids. Diseases like lung cancer, diabetes, and even early-stage Parkinson’s alter these VOC signatures long before a patient feels sick.

By embedding AI-powered biomachine noses into everyday medical devices, smartphones, or public wellness kiosks, we can detect these microscopic shifts with incredible accuracy. This unlocks low-cost, ultra-early screening platforms that democratize preventative care. The human-centered impact here cannot be overstated: we are moving away from invasive, anxiety-inducing diagnostic procedures toward a future of passive, continuous health monitoring that catches threats when they are most treatable.

Agribusiness & Food Safety: Dynamic Freshness Over Static Dates

The global food supply chain is plagued by a massive structural inefficiency: our reliance on arbitrary, static “best by” or expiration dates. These dates are often conservative estimates calculated months in advance, leading to staggering amounts of premature food waste, or conversely, failing to prevent outbreaks of foodborne illnesses when supply chains break down.

Digital olfaction introduces real-time, molecular transparency to agribusiness. By deploying sensor arrays within shipping containers, cold-storage warehouses, and processing facilities, companies can constantly monitor the chemical outgassing of produce, meat, and dairy. Instead of guessing freshness based on a calendar, logistics networks can track actual degradation, optimize shipping routes based on real-time shelf life, and instantly flag contamination or spoilage. This optimization reduces waste, enhances food security, and protects margins across the entire ecosystem.

Security & Defense: Decentralized Threat Detection

In high-stakes security environments, biological working dogs have long been the gold standard for detecting explosives, narcotics, and hazardous materials. However, K9 units are a finite, highly resource-intensive asset. Dogs get tired, require extensive training, and face immense physical danger in active threat zones.

Autonomous, localized digital olfaction platforms are stepping in to complement and augment these biological heroes. Highly ruggedized, peptide-functionalized sensor arrays can be integrated into stationary security checkpoints, autonomous drones, or robotic ground vehicles. These systems work continuously without fatigue, mapping invisible chemical plumes and identifying airborne hazards in real time. By decentralizing threat detection, we can safeguard critical infrastructure and protect human lives without putting operators — or animals — in harm’s way.

The Market Shapers: Leading Companies and Startups to Watch

The digital olfaction ecosystem is accelerating rapidly, moving from academic labs to commercial viability. For innovation leaders and experience designers, keeping a pulse on this landscape is no longer optional — it is a baseline requirement for future readiness. The market is currently being shaped by specialized pioneers who are building the foundational hardware, software, and chemical registries required to make technology molecule-aware.

To navigate this emerging sector, organizations should closely monitor these three trailblazing companies, each approaching the challenge from a distinct technological modality and targeting unique strategic markets:

Company / Startup	Core Technology Modality	Primary Strategic Target Market
Osmo	AI-powered molecular scent mapping and predictive chemical synthesis. Built on a foundation of machine learning models that can predict how a molecule smells based solely on its molecular structure.	Fragrance formulation, sustainable ingredient design, raw material sourcing, and digital scent replication for consumer goods.
Aryballe	Peptide-functionalized, silicon-photonic optoelectronic noses. They combine biochemical sensors that mimic human olfactory receptors with advanced machine learning to deliver precise, repeatable digital scent fingerprints.	Food and beverage quality control, automotive cabin diagnostics, industrial fluid monitoring, and supply chain integrity.
OVR Technology	Micro-cartridge scent-dispensing hardware and spatial audio-visual integration tools. They specialize in ultra-precise, localized burst technology that releases and completely clears scents in milliseconds.	Immersive professional training, spatial computing (AR/VR/XR), therapeutic digital wellness, and next-generation entertainment ecosystems.

Navigating the Ecosystem

What makes this landscape fascinating from an innovation perspective is that these players are not necessarily in direct competition; rather, they are constructing different pieces of the same puzzle. While Osmo acts as the brain cataloging and synthesizing the molecular world, Aryballe serves as the highly sensitive diagnostic receptor, and OVR Technology operates as the delivery mechanism for human interaction.

As these technologies mature and converge, they will form the backbone of a standardized internet of scent. Strategic leaders should begin identifying which modality aligns with their organizational needs — whether they need to decode the environment (Aryballe), predict chemical design (Osmo), or deliver a transformative user experience (OVR Technology).

Deep-Dive Case Study: Nondestructive Quality Control in Luxury Agribusiness

To truly understand the power of innovation, we must look at how it solves real-world, high-stakes problems where trust and value intersect. Theory inspires, but application instructs. To see digital olfaction in action, we look at the luxury agribusiness sector — specifically, the global market for Extra Virgin Olive Oil (EVOO), a premium product where liquid gold meets legacy fraud.

The Challenge: The Fragility of Premium Trust

Extra Virgin Olive Oil is one of the most economically vulnerable agricultural products in the world. It is highly susceptible to two critical vulnerabilities: natural degradation via oxidation, and deliberate financial fraud. Because true EVOO commands a premium price, bad actors frequently blend it with lower-grade seed oils or older, rancid inventories, passing it off as fresh, single-origin product.

For luxury brands, this is a catastrophic customer experience and brand equity risk. Yet, defending the supply chain has historically been a logistical nightmare. Traditional laboratory verification methods — such as Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS) or panels of human sensory tasters—are slow, incredibly expensive, and completely destructive to the product sample being tested. A brand cannot easily or cost-effectively test every batch at every point of transfer, leading to a reactive, backward-looking quality assurance model that only catches fraud after the consumer has already had a subpar experience.

The Innovation: Upgrading to the Electronic Nose

To disrupt this cycle, progressive producers deployed an innovative solution built on a portable, peptide-functionalized silicon-photonic electronic nose platform (utilizing technology similar to Aryballe’s NeOse Advance). Instead of destroying the oil or waiting weeks for lab results, operators use handheld digital sniffing devices right on the factory floor and at receiving docks.

The process leverages headspace analysis. By capturing the volatile organic compounds vaporizing in the empty space right above the liquid oil, the digital nose pulls in the molecular “aroma plume” without ever touching or contaminating the product itself. The synthetic peptides on the sensor chip bind with the specific VOCs characteristic of pure, fresh olives. The device then uses machine learning algorithms to instantly compare the resulting digital fingerprint against an established baseline registry of verified EVOO profiles.

The Result: Shifting from Post-Mortem to Real-Time Experience

The integration of digital olfaction fundamentally transformed the agribusiness value chain, shifting quality control from a clinical post-mortem to a proactive, real-time design asset:

Instant Fraud Detection: The AI-driven platform can instantly flag if an oil has been cut with a cheaper alternative, identifying the molecular mismatch in under 60 seconds at a fraction of the cost of traditional lab tests.
Dynamic Shelf-Life Monitoring: Because the system detects the earliest microscopic markers of oxidation long before a human palate can taste the rancidity, producers can dynamically reroute inventories, ensuring only peak-condition product ever hits retail shelves.
Nondestructive Integrity: Zero product is wasted during testing. The supply chain remains completely fluid, transparent, and verified from grove to table.

By digitizing smell, this luxury agribusiness application proves that human-centered innovation isn’t just about building cooler apps; it’s about deploying invisible infrastructure that fiercely protects human trust, operational integrity, and the authenticity of the consumer experience.

The Ethics of Invisible Data & Change Management

Every profound technological leap brings a shadow side, and digital olfaction is no exception. As we build the infrastructure to sense the molecular world, we are introducing data streams that are entirely invisible to the naked eye. In human-centered design, innovation cannot be divorced from ethics. If we fail to design the governance frameworks around these technologies with the same care we use to build the sensors, we risk creating a deeply invasive future that erodes the very human trust we aim to build.

The Privacy of Odor Plumes: Non-Consensual Surveillance

We are accustomed to managing our digital footprints — we clear our browser cookies, turn off location services, and cover our webcams. But we cannot stop breathing, and we cannot stop shedding chemical signatures into the air around us. Every human being constantly leaves behind a unique, dynamic “odor plume” filled with metabolic, emotional, and environmental data.

The rise of decentralized molecular tracking creates intense new ethical dilemmas regarding privacy and non-consensual surveillance. If a retail environment can deploy passive digital noses to detect stress hormones in a customer’s sweat, or if an employer can passively scan an office to monitor health conditions or substance use, we cross a dangerous line from contextual assistance into dystopian violation. Innovation leaders must champion strict boundary lines: molecular data must be treated with the same weight as biometric or genomic data, requiring explicit user consent, radical transparency, and robust edge-computing privacy protections.

Organizational Adaptation: Navigating the Change Management of Data Fusion

Beyond the societal ethics, bringing digital olfaction into an enterprise requires a massive shift in organizational culture and change management. For legacy operations and engineering teams, integrating “ambient chemical data” into existing IoT architectures can feel overwhelming, disruptive, and unnecessary. People naturally resist what they do not understand, and a machine that “smells” can easily be misconstrued as an invasive policing tool or an eccentric, unstable gimmick.

To successfully guide organizations through this transition, change leaders must focus on two core pillars:

Demystifying the Technology: Frame digital olfaction not as an omniscient surveillance apparatus, but as a collaborative asset. Teams need to see the electronic nose as an extension of their own capabilities — a tool that automates tedious quality checks or safeguards their environment, rather than a system designed to audit their individual performance.
Emphasizing Human-Centered Data Fusion: Avoid the temptation to turn molecular insights into rigid, punitive metrics. Instead, design workflows where chemical data functions as a supportive layer of contextual intelligence. When a sensor flags a supply chain variance, the system should empower the human operator with options and insights, maintaining human agency at the center of the loop.

True transformation happens when technology aligns with human behavior, not when it forces humans to bend to the technology. By proactively managing the ethical guardrails and cultural shifts today, we ensure that the molecule-aware organizations of tomorrow remain profoundly human-centered.

Conclusion: Designing a Molecule-Aware World

We stand at a unique crossroads in the history of innovation. The digital architectures we have built over the last half-century are incredibly powerful, yet they remain fundamentally incomplete. By treating the human being as an organism that merely looks and listens, we have built a digital ecosystem that operates at a fraction of our true experiential capacity. Digital olfaction is the bridge that closes this gap, moving us from an era of superficial digital interaction to one of deep, molecule-aware integration.

The Innovation Mandate: Why Waiting is a Losing Strategy

When encountering an emerging frontier like olfactory digitization, the default corporate reflex is often to wait. Leaders look at the lack of a universal “RGB standard” for scent or the early stage of sensor convergence and decide to kick the container down the road, waiting for the market to mature and settle on a single victor.

This is a critical strategic blunder. The organizations that dominate the next decade will not be those that waited for absolute standardization, but those that began experimenting with the messy, beautiful reality of sensory enhancement today. The infrastructure is already viable. Whether you are using peptide-functionalized chips to protect a premium supply chain, or utilizing micro-burst delivery systems to deepen immersion in spatial computing, the tools to build a competitive advantage exist right now.

The mandate for innovation leaders is clear: begin auditing your customer and user journeys today. Look for the friction points, the cold zones, and the sensory deficits where emotional gravity and memory retention are lacking. That is where your digital olfaction roadmap begins.

The Future Smells Real

Ultimately, human-centered change is about designing a world that respects the entirety of the human experience. It is about using technology not to isolate us further behind sheets of glass, but to reconnect us to the rich, multi-layered textures of reality.

As we step boldly into this next horizon, we must remember that the ultimate destination of digital transformation isn’t a more complex virtual simulation — it is a more vibrant, authentic human existence. The future of technology will not just look sleek and sound sharp. It will smell real.

Digital Olfaction: Frequently Asked Questions

What is digital olfaction, and why does it matter for experience design?

Digital olfaction (or olfactory digitization) is the technology infrastructure used to capture, analyze, transmit, and synthesize scent data, effectively creating a molecule-aware world. For experience designers and innovation leaders, it matters because smell is the only sense that bypasses the logical brain and interacts directly with the limbic system — the seat of emotion and memory. Integrating digital olfaction allows us to move past a two-dimensional visual-auditory monoculture and build experiences with profound emotional gravity, accelerated learning retention, and authentic human connection.

How do machines actually “smell” without a universal standard like RGB?

Because scent relies on thousands of unique chemical structures rather than simple wave frequencies, it cannot be neatly mapped into an “RGB” equivalent. Instead, machine olfaction requires a dual-layer approach. The hardware layer utilizes biomachine noses — ranging from metal-oxide sensors to cutting-edge peptide-functionalized optoelectronic chips — to catch volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The software layer then uses advanced AI classifiers to analyze the resulting chemical patterns, matching the multi-dimensional “scent print” against digital registries to identify and decode the smell.

What are the primary ethical and change management risks of olfactory digitization?

The foremost ethical risk is privacy; humans constantly shed invisible odor plumes containing metabolic, emotional, and health data that cannot be turned off, opening the door to non-consensual biometric tracking if guardrails are not established. On an organizational level, the primary change management challenge is demystifying the technology. Leaders must proactively design workflows where digital noses are framed as collaborative assets that empower human operators and protect supply chains, rather than punitive, invasive surveillance tools.

Disclaimer: This article speculates on the potential future applications of cutting-edge scientific research. While based on current scientific understanding, the practical realization of these concepts may vary in timeline and feasibility and are subject to ongoing research and development.

Image credits: Gemini

Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

Make Life Easier for Your Customers

Leave a reply

GUEST POST from Mike Shipulski

Companies that have products want to improve them year-on-year. This year’s must be better than last year’s. For selfish reasons, we like to improve cost, speed and quality. Cost reduction drops profit directly to the bottom line. Increased speed reduces overhead (less labor per unit) and increases floor space productivity (more through the factory). Improved quality reduces costs. And for our customers, we like to improve their productivity by helping them do more value-added work with fewer resources. More with less! But there’s a problem – every year it gets more difficult to improve on last year, especially with our narrowly-defined view of what customers value.

And some companies talk about creating the next generation business model, though no one’s quite sure of what the business model actually is and what makes for a better one.

To break out of our narrow view of “better” and to avoid endless arguments over business models, I suggest an approach based on a simple mantra – Make It Easy.

Make it easy for the customer to _____________.

And take a broad view of what customers actually do. Here are some ideas:

Make it easy to find you. If they can’t find you, they can’t buy from you.

Make it easy to understand what you do and why you do it. Give them a reason to buy.

Make it easy to choose the right solution. No one likes buying the wrong thing.

Make it easy to pay. If they need a loan, why not find one for them?

Make it easy to receive. Think undamaged, recyclable packaging, easy to get off the truck.

Make it easy to install. Don’t think user manuals, think self-installation.

Make it easy to verify it’s ready to go. No screens, no menus. One green light.

Make it easy to deliver the value-added benefit. We over-focus here and can benefit by thinking more broadly. Make it easy to set up, easy to verify the setup, easy to know how to use it, easy change over to the next job.

Make it easy to know the utilization. The product knows when it’s being used, why not give it the authority to automatically tell people how much free time it has?

Make it easy to maintain. When the fastest machine in the world is down for the count, it becomes tied for the slowest machine in the world. Make it easy to know what needs be replaced and when, make it easy to know how to replace it, make it easy to order the replacement parts, make it easy to verify the work was done correctly, make it easy to notify that the work was done correctly, and make it easy to reset the timers.

Make it easy to troubleshoot. Even the best maintenance programs don’t eliminate all the problems. Think auto-diagnosis. Then, like with maintenance, all the follow-on work should be easy.

Make it easy to improve. As the product is used, it learns. It recognizes who is using it, remembers how they like it to behave, then assumes the desired persona.

Though this list is not exhaustive, it provides some food for thought. Yes, most of the list is not traditionally considered value-added activities. But, customers DO value improvements in these areas because these are the jobs they must do. If your competition is focused narrowly on productivity, why not differentiate by making it easy in a more broader sense? When you do, they’ll buy more.

And don’t argue about your business model. Instead, choose important jobs to be done and make them easier for the customer. In that way, how you prioritize your work defines your business model. Think of the business model as a result.

And for a deeper dive on how to make it easy, here’s one of my favorite posts. The takeaway – Don’t push people toward an objective. Instead, eliminate what’s in the way.

Image credit: Pexels

Sign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

How to Design a Horrible, Terrible, No Good, Very Bad User Experience

Leave a reply

How to Design a Horrible, Terrible, No Good, Very Bad User Experience

GUEST POST from Geoffrey A. Moore

Some of you may know that early in my career I taught English at the college level. The freshman writing requirement was always a challenge as textbook publishers struggled valiantly to find some reading material that would actually help students write better. One of their best efforts was an essay titled “How to Write an F Paper.” It turns out we learn better from failure than from success—who knew?

With that thought in mind, and taking liberties with the title of one of my favorite children’s books, I want to review an actual user experience delivered to me by the manufacturer of a luxury automobile. The vehicle itself performs admirably, so kudos to the product engineers. It is the customer experience team that needs to be taken to the woodshed.

Here’s how the experience starts. I get in my car, start it, and back out of my garage, benefiting as always from the rear camera system. The system stays on when I shift into drive until I get onto the road and have gone perhaps fifty yards. At that point, the multimedia display presents the following:

An update is ready for installation on your multimedia system. The following conditions must be agreed to before installation.
(READ NOW) (LATER)

Well, I am driving the car, so I don’t think READ NOW is a very good option. I hit LATER, the screen returns to normal, and I get on with my day. To tell the truth, I forget about the whole experience until the next day when, after backing out of my garage and getting onto the road, I get a replay of the same message. Astoundingly, I am driving my car again, so again I push LATER.

Now, as my spouse will testify, sometimes I am a slow learner, so it is not until the better part of a week has passed that I realize the only time I am going to get this message is the first time I start the car in the morning and have driven around fifty yards. At this point, I decide to pull over and push READ. Here is what I got in reply:

Software update for your infotainment system — In order to read the terms and conditions, please park the vehicle safely, switch off the ignition and apply the parking brake.

Well, as it turns out, the reason I got in my car and drove that first fifty yards is that I actually have someplace I need to get to on time, so the idea of switching off the ignition does not appeal. I go back, push the LATER button (feeling a bit like Neo in the Matrix at this point), sub-vocalize a few choice words for the vendor, and carry on with my day.

I won’t testify as to how many days after I had the same introductory message appear and pushed LATER because you guessed it, I actually had somewhere to go and wanted to arrive there on time. But, one day I had the opportunity to be parking somewhere for a good while, so that day I did not push either button until I got to the lot. (“You can fool some of the people all the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.”) Once parked, I did switch off my ignition and applied the parking brake, and was rewarded with the following messages.

Software update for your installation system

Notes
The installation process requires several minutes and cannot be canceled or closed. Individual functions and buttons in the vehicle are not available for use during the installation or their use is limited. The multimedia display does not support display messages.

In the unlikely event of a technical error during installation, functional restrictions of the multimedia system and the above-mentioned functions may persist and make it necessary to consult a workshop.

This is what happens when you let the legal team review the customer communications text. Fresh from their latest efforts with the Safe Harbor statement from the prior quarter’s earnings call, they are fiercely protecting their enterprise from any and every liability risk. Heartwarming as these words were, they actually felt they were not protection enough because they were followed by:

Warnings

During installation of this update, the multimedia system is not available. In particular, this includes systems such as the navigation system, phone, reversing camera, 360 camera, Active Parking Assist, Remote Parking Assist, PARKTRONIC, and the switch for DYNAMIC SELECT.

There is an increased risk of accident.

Installing the update while operating the vehicle may distract you from the traffic situation.

There is an increased risk of accident.

Carry out the installation

And yes, that last line is a call to action, clearly meant to benefit from the wave of inspiration created by the earlier sentences. My only surprise was that it did not append the phrase “at your own risk.”

Now, to be fair, I did carry out the installation, and it took about seven minutes or so, and it was fine. So again, the product engineers know what they are doing. But where in the name of all that is holy is the customer experience engineering? Who in their right mind would ever want their customers—and remember this is a luxury vehicle with some pretty high-end customers—to go through such an experience? And most importantly, what are the takeaways that will keep us from going down the same path?

Here are three that come to mind:

Design the experience. Work backward from the end in mind, making sure each element is contributing to the desired outcome.
Test the experience. Make this a real-world test, not a lab test. Recruit vehicle owners to participate. Capture their feedback.
Eliminate friction. All hygiene processes entail some amount of friction. In such situations, your job is not to delight your customers here but rather to avoid annoying them. Do so by respecting their time.

In this case, what if the car company had sent me an email first? That could have included all their liability stuff. It also could coach me on when and how to best install the update. Once I replied I had read the stuff, then they could have sent a much simpler message over the multimedia system, or maybe just triggered the download on my behalf when my car was safely in my garage. The point is, there was clearly a better way, and just as clearly, nobody at the car company cared enough to advocate for it.

That’s what I think. What do you think?

Image Credit: Pexels, Geoffrey Moore

Sign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

Why Zero UI Will Redefine Experience Design

1 Reply

The Invisible Interface

LAST UPDATED: May 2, 2026 at 9:13 AM

Why Zero UI Will Redefine Experience Design

GUEST POST from Art Inteligencia

I. Introduction: The End of the Glass Slab

The Screen Fatigue Phenomenon: We have reached a point of peak saturation with traditional displays. Our lives are currently mediated by glowing rectangles, leading to a fragmented human experience where the tool often overshadows the task.

Defining Zero UI: This is not the absence of an interface, but the disappearance of the user interface as we know it. It represents a move away from rigid, button-heavy menus toward more organic inputs like voice, haptics, computer vision, and ambient intelligence.

The Core Thesis: Technology is at its most powerful when it is invisible. By removing the friction between human intent and technological execution, we allow people to return their focus to the experience itself, rather than the device required to facilitate it.

II. The Sensory Stack: How Zero UI Works

Voice & Natural Language: We are witnessing a transition from the “Command-Line Interface” era of voice (where specific keywords were required) to fluid, contextual conversations. The goal is a system that understands nuance, sarcasm, and intent, mirroring human-to-human interaction.

Biometrics & Gesture Control: In a Zero UI world, the body becomes the input device. Through computer vision and skeletal tracking, technology can interpret a wave of a hand or a shift in gaze, allowing for spatial computing that feels like an extension of natural movement.

Proactive vs. Reactive Design: Traditional UI waits for a user to click; Zero UI anticipates. By leveraging machine learning and sensor data, systems can predict needs—adjusting the lighting when you enter a room or preparing a summary of a meeting before you even ask for it.

Haptics & Sensory Feedback: Communication doesn’t always need to be audible or visual. Subtle vibrations (haptics) or environmental changes (thermal or olfactory cues) can provide “glanceable” information without demanding the user’s full cognitive attention.

III. From UX to HX (Human Experience)

Designing for Context: In the era of Zero UI, the focus shifts from “clicks” to “intent.” Experience design no longer lives within the boundaries of a screen; it must account for a user’s physical location, environmental noise levels, and even social setting. We aren’t just designing a path to a button; we are designing a response to a human moment.

Reducing Cognitive Load: The “Invisible Assistant” model moves us away from app management and toward outcome management. By utilizing ambient intelligence, technology handles the “how” so humans can focus on the “why.” This creates a “Calm UI” effect, where digital interactions support our life goals without demanding constant visual attention.

The Ethics of Invisibility: As interfaces disappear, the “Black Box” problem grows. Designers must prioritize radical transparency—ensuring users understand when and how they are being sensed. Trust becomes the primary currency; without clear consent and “off-switches” for predictive features, invisible interfaces risk becoming intrusive rather than helpful.

From Screens to Systems: We are moving toward “Sentient Interfaces” that detect hesitation or frustration through behavioral cues. Transitioning to HX (Human Experience) means building ecosystems that are emotionally aware, neuro-inclusive, and capable of failing gracefully when the AI misinterprets human intent.

IV. Leading Innovators: The Architects of Invisibility

The transition to Zero UI is being led by a diverse ecosystem of startups and legacy tech giants. As of 2026, the following organizations are moving beyond the screen to define the future of human-centered interaction:

Company / Startup	Core Focus	Why They Matter Now
Neuralink	Brain-Computer Interface (BCI)	Entering high-volume production in 2026, Neuralink is moving BCI from clinical trials to the ultimate seamless interface: thought-based control.
Ultraleap	Mid-air Haptics & Tracking	By projecting ultrasound waves onto the skin, they provide tactile feedback in mid-air, crucial for non-visual “touch” in automotive and XR environments.
SoundHound AI	Agentic Voice Commerce	Their latest “Amelia 7” platform allows users to manage complex real-world transactions—like dinner reservations and parking—entirely through natural conversation.
Memories.ai	Contextual Wearables (LUCI)	Following the pivot of early wearables like the Humane Ai Pin, Memories.ai is building the “Android of AI wearables,” providing a system-level reference for ambient intelligence.
Synchron	Endovascular BCI	A key competitor to Neuralink, Synchron focuses on minimally invasive brain interfaces that allow users to control digital devices via the blood vessels, emphasizing safety and accessibility.

Strategic Implementation: For brands, the challenge is no longer just “building an app.” It is about integrating into these emerging ecosystems. Whether it is through voice agents or haptic-enabled environments, the goal for designers is to ensure their brand’s presence is felt and heard, even when it cannot be seen.

V. The Futurologist’s Perspective: What’s Next?

The Transition to “Liquid Services”: In 2026, we are moving away from the “static app” model. Instead, we are entering the era of liquid services—capabilities that flow seamlessly across devices. Your interaction might start as a voice command in the kitchen, continue as a haptic pulse on your wrist while walking, and conclude as a spatial projection in your vehicle. The interface is no longer a destination; it is a persistent, supportive presence.

Hyper-Personalization and Ambient Intelligence: One-size-fits-all design is dead. Leveraging what I call “Fortified Intelligence,” future systems will adapt in real-time to the individual’s neurodiversity, physical abilities, and current emotional state. Environments will become “sentient,” adjusting lighting, acoustics, and information density based on the user’s “Digital Persona” without a single manual adjustment.

The Challenge for Designers: Behavioral Architecture: The role of the designer is shifting from visual storytelling to behavioral and sensory architecture. We are no longer just drawing screens; we are defining the “rules of engagement” between humans and machines. This requires a Whole-Brain approach—part scientist to manage the data and part artist to inspire human connection. Success in this new landscape is measured by “Speed to Resilience” rather than just speed to market.

Reclaiming the Human Moment: Paradoxically, the more advanced our technology becomes, the more we value “human friction.” As Zero UI automates the logistical “drudge work” of life, experience design for the future will emphasize the things AI cannot replicate: intentional inefficiency, the warmth of human presence, and the physical tangibility of the world around us. We are designing technology to get it out of the way, so we can finally be human again.

VI. Conclusion: Reclaiming the Human Moment

Beyond Efficiency: As I often say, true innovation isn’t just about making things faster or cheaper—it’s about making things more human. Zero UI is the final step in removing the technical debt of the 21st century. By dissolving the “glass slab” that separates us from our tasks, we aren’t just improving efficiency; we are restoring presence. When the technology disappears, we are finally free to focus on the work that matters and the people who inspire us.

A Call for Design Integrity: As we look toward the 2030s, the “Wild West” era of digital interfaces is closing. We are entering an era of Structural Integrity in experience design. Designers and innovation leaders must move beyond “Process Theater”—workshops that generate ideas without outcomes—and start building the resilient, invisible infrastructure that supports a flourishing society. We must have the courage to design a future that doesn’t require us to retreat into the friction of the past.

Final Thought: The most disruptive interface is the one that doesn’t exist because it works so well you’ve forgotten it’s there. The goal of the Invisible Interface is not to automate the human out of the loop, but to close the loop on friction, leaving only the experience behind. Let’s design an infrastructure that doesn’t just survive the future, but defines it.

Are you ready to move from UX to HX?

If you’re looking to get to the future first, increase your speed of innovation, or create a culture of continuous transformation, connect with Braden Kelley for a keynote or a FutureHacking™ workshop to teach you to be your own futurist.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between Zero UI and traditional UI?

Traditional UI (User Interface) relies on visual elements like screens, buttons, and menus to facilitate interaction. Zero UI moves away from these “glass slabs,” instead utilizing natural human behaviors—such as voice, gestures, haptics, and ambient intelligence—to interact with technology without a physical screen as the primary mediator.

How does Zero UI improve the Human Experience (HX)?

By reducing cognitive load and removing the friction of navigating complex menus, Zero UI allows technology to become a proactive assistant rather than a reactive tool. This shift toward “Human Experience” prioritizes context and intent, allowing users to stay present in their physical environment while still benefiting from digital capabilities.

Is Zero UI secure and private?

As interfaces become invisible, transparency becomes the most critical design element. Leading innovators are focusing on “Privacy by Design,” ensuring that ambient sensing and voice processing are handled with clear consent and robust encryption, often processing data locally (on-edge) rather than in the cloud to maintain user trust.

Image credits: Gemini

Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

A Tiny Bit of Uninterrupted Work Goes a Long Way

Leave a reply

A Tiny Bit of Uninterrupted Work Goes a Long Way

GUEST POST from Mike Shipulski

If your day doesn’t start with a list of things you want to get done, there’s little chance you’ll get them done. What if you spent thirty minutes to define what you want to get done and then spent an hour getting them done? In ninety minutes you’ll have made a significant dent in the most important work. It doesn’t sound like a big deal, but it’s bigger than big. Question: How often do you work for thirty minutes without interruptions?

Switching costs are high, but we don’t behave that way. Once interrupted, what if it takes ten minutes to get back into the groove? What if it takes fifteen minutes? What if you’re interrupted every ten or fifteen minutes? Question: What if the minimum time block to do real thinking is thirty minutes of uninterrupted time?

Let’s assume for your average week you carve out sixty minutes of uninterrupted time each day to do meaningful work, then, doing as I propose – spending thirty minutes planning and sixty minutes doing something meaningful every day – increases your meaningful work by 50%. Not bad. And if for your average week you currently spend thirty contiguous minutes each day doing deep work, the proposed ninety-minute arrangement increases your meaningful work by 200%. A big deal. And if you only work for thirty minutes three out of five days, the ninety-minute arrangement increases your meaningful work by 400%. A night and day difference.

Question: How many times per week do you spend thirty minutes of uninterrupted time working on the most important things? How would things change if every day you spent thirty minutes planning and sixty minutes doing the most important work?

Great idea, but with today’s business culture there’s no way to block out ninety minutes of uninterrupted time. To that I say, before going to work, plan for thirty minutes at home. And set up a sixty-minute recurring meeting with yourself first thing every morning and do sixty minutes of uninterrupted work. And if you can’t sit at your desk without being interrupted, hold the sixty-minute meeting with yourself in a location where you won’t be interrupted. And, to make up for the thirty minutes you spent planning at home, leave thirty minutes early.

No way. Can’t do it. Won’t work.

It will work. Here’s why. Over the course of a month, you’ll have done at least 50% more real work than everyone else. And, because your work time is uninterrupted, the quality of your work will be better than everyone else’s. And, because you spend time planning, you will work on the most important things. More deep work, higher quality working conditions, and regular planning. You can’t beat that, even if it’s only sixty to ninety minutes per day.

The math works because in our normal working mode, we don’t spend much time working in an uninterrupted way. Do the math for yourself. Sum the number of minutes per week you spend working at least thirty minutes at time. And whatever the number, figure out a way to increase the minutes by 50%. A small number of minutes will make a big difference.

Image credit: Pexels

Sign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

Designing Work for Humans and AI Agents to Do Together

Leave a reply

LAST UPDATED: April 29, 2026 at 6:28 PM

Designing Work for Humans and AI Agents to Do Together

by Braden Kelley and Art Inteligencia

The Work Design Gap

We are not struggling to build artificial intelligence. We are struggling to design work for it.

Across industries, organizations are layering AI onto workflows that were never meant for collaboration. The result is predictable: inefficiency, mistrust, and unrealized value.

The real divide is not human versus AI. It is between work that is intentionally designed for collaboration and work that is not.

Why Traditional Tools Fail Us

Most of our management tools were built for a different era.

Process maps assume predictability
Org charts assume static roles
RACI models assume clear ownership

But human and AI collaboration is dynamic, contextual, and continuously learning. These tools help us optimize yesterday’s work, not design tomorrow’s.

What we need is a new visual language for collaboration.

Introducing the Human–AI Collaboration Canvas

The infographic below is not just a diagram. It is a thinking tool.

Its purpose is to make invisible interactions visible, clarify roles without over-constraining them, and embed judgment, trust, and learning into how work gets done.

This is a shift from process design to system design for collaboration.

The Three-Lane Model: A More Honest Representation of Work

The canvas is built around three interconnected lanes:

The Human Lane

Where judgment, empathy, ethics, and accountability live. Humans frame the problem, not just solve it.

The AI Agent Lane

Where scale, speed, pattern recognition, and automation operate. AI expands what is possible.

The “Together” Lane

This is where value is actually created. Co-creation, co-decision, and co-learning happen here.

If you are not explicitly designing the middle lane, you are leaving value on the table.

The Work Journey: Sense → Decide → Act → Learn

Instead of rigid workflows, the canvas maps work as an adaptive cycle:

Sense: Understand context and gather signals
Decide: Blend human reasoning with AI recommendations
Act: Execute with scale and oversight
Learn: Reflect, adapt, and improve

Learning is not the end of the process. It feeds everything.

Collaboration Nodes: Where the Magic (or Failure) Happens

At key points in the journey are collaboration nodes—the moments where humans and AI interact.

Each node forces three critical questions:

Who leads?
What is the role of the other?
What is at stake?

Most AI failures are not technical failures. They are interaction design failures.

Making Judgment Visible

One of the biggest risks in AI adoption is invisible decision-making.

The canvas highlights:

Where human judgment is required
Where AI recommendations are sufficient
Where escalation is necessary

Automation without explicit judgment design is just risk at scale.

Designing for Trust, Not Just Performance

Capability alone is not enough. Systems must be trusted to be used effectively.

This requires:

Transparency
Explainability
Auditability

The real question is not “Can the AI do this?” but “Will humans trust and use this appropriately?”

Learning Loops: The System That Gets Smarter

The canvas includes two reinforcing learning loops:

AI Learning Loop: Data → Model → Output → Feedback → Improvement
Human Learning Loop: Experience → Reflection → Insight → Better decisions

The real competitive advantage is not AI itself. It is how quickly your combined system learns.

Risk, Ethics, and Failure by Design

No system is perfect. The best systems are designed with failure in mind.

The canvas highlights:

Bias and fairness
Privacy and security
Safety and compliance

It also asks essential questions:

What happens if the AI is wrong?
What happens if the human is wrong?
How do we recover?

Resilience comes from designing for breakdowns, not ignoring them.

How to Use This Canvas

This is a practical tool, not a theoretical one.

Use it in workshops to map collaboration
Audit existing workflows
Design new human–AI systems from scratch

A simple place to start:

Map one critical workflow
Identify collaboration nodes
Redesign the “together” lane first

Designing for a More Human Future

AI does not reduce the need for humans. It raises the bar for how we design work.

The goal is not efficiency alone. The goal is better decisions, better experiences, and better outcomes.

The organizations that win will not be the ones with the most AI. They will be the ones who best design how humans and AI work together.

EDITOR’S NOTE: You should read this article too to learn more about atomizing work for man and machine to do together.

Content Authenticity Statement: The topic area, key elements to focus on, etc. were decisions made by Braden Kelley, with a little help from ChatGPT and Google Gemini to clean up the article, add images and create infographics.

Image credits: Google Gemini, ChatGPT

Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

Aesthetics – Part Two

Leave a reply

Aesthetics - Part Two

GUEST POST from Geoffrey A. Moore

From The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy entry on Aesthetics

Philosophy of art has also dealt with the nature of taste, beauty, imagination, creativity, representation, expression, and expressiveness; style; whether artworks convey knowledge or truth; the nature of narrative and metaphor; the importance of genre; the ontological status of artworks; and the character of our emotional responses to art.

This is in essence a laundry list of the things I find compelling about esthetics, and in this essay, I plan to dig into each one of them.

Taste

Here’s how the Oxford English Dictionary defines taste relative to esthetics:

OED: 8. The sense of what is appropriate, harmonious, or beautiful; esp. discernment and appreciation of the beautiful in nature or art; spec. the faculty of perceiving and enjoying what is excellent in art, literature, and the like.

Note the struggle here to insert an analytical capability into a pre-linguistic experience. Sense is pre-linguistic, discernment and appreciation are post-linguistic, and faculty is an attempt to unify the two as an analytical skill. In my view, esthetic experience is a two-step process, where sense governs step 1, and discernment governs step 2. This is directly analogous to Coleridge’s primary and secondary imagination, the former coming up with innovations, the latter imposing shape and form upon them. Provided we maintain a disciplined separation between the two steps, we can indeed call this a faculty.

This begs a bigger question, however. How does the pre-linguistic capability of sense recognize what is appropriate, harmonious, or beautiful in the first place? What is the connection between the external and the internal?

Beauty

This is as close as we are going to get to the external pole of esthetic experience, the thing that causes the impact on the internal pole, our conscious self.

OED: 1. Such combined perfection of form and charm of coloring as affords keen pleasure to the sense of sight.

OED: 2. That quality or combination of qualities which affords keen pleasure to other senses (e.g. that of hearing), or which charms the intellectual or moral faculties, through inherent grace, or fitness to a desired end.

Look how out of its depth the OED is here! It is forced to use the word charm twice to invoke little more than inexplicable magic. It is not that I disagree with the word, but what the hell does it mean? OK, let’s ask the OED again:

OED: 3. Any quality, attribute, trait, feature, etc., which exerts a fascinating or attractive influence, exciting love, or admiration.

OK, I agree that beauty has charm, but that does not explain its force, it only labels it. Why is beauty charming? What is it that is fascinating or attractive, exciting our love or admiration?

At the material level, with visual arts, the consensus is that it is due to a combination of color and form that strikes us as harmonious, another word that I agree with but that also seems mystical. But here I think we can make a connection with the experience of mindfulness by asserting that the harmony involved in both experiences is the same. That would suggest that beauty is a spiritually refreshing experience, that it homeostatically returns us to a state of well-being. One virtue of this notion is that it makes it easy to bridge to other arts, like music, where form and color are not the active ingredients, but venturing out and returning to a state of well-being is still in play.

To be fair, for some at least, well-being itself may also be a mystical term, foreshadowing the possibility of an infinite regress of definitions as the analytical intellect struggles to engage with ineffable experiences, but I am willing to stop here and say, from a Darwinian perspective, it makes sense to me that homeostasis is real and relatively prevalent, that it is core to well-being, and that evolution would select for experiences that reinforce it as conferring competitive advantage in human affairs.

Imagination and Creativity

Both these topics extend far beyond the domain of esthetics and the philosophy of art and, if pursued at length, will lead us far off-topic. Within the domain of esthetics, both terms communicate admiration for the ingenuity of the artists who have in some way surprised us with their work. Surprise itself is an integral part of esthetic experience which we will address subsequently.

What we want to investigate here is the presence of the artist in the esthetic experience. In one sense, the artist is not present. We experience the artwork in their absence. But as we engage with multiple works from the same artist, we develop a sense of their style, their values, their topics of interest, and the like. We say things like, “I love Dylan,” or “I can’t stand Proust,” and both statements serve to summarize our esthetic experiences of their work. Where this goes awry, in my view, is when we drag the artist out onto center stage, creating a cult of personality—not a bad thing in itself necessarily, but outside the bounds of esthetics.

Representation, Expression, and Expressiveness

This collection of three terms manifests a tug of war between the Enlightenment and Romanticism about where to anchor the esthetic experience. The Enlightenment focuses on representation as the interaction between the art object, the experiencing subject, and the world at large, positioning art as a subject-object experience that upon absorption reshapes our subject-world experience. In this context, the role of esthetics is to critique the art in relation to the world—how well does the art represent the world to us, and how much has it changed our perception of things? The artist is not directly part of this equation.

By contrast, in the Romantic esthetic, the artist does take center stage. Art is positioned as a subject-object-subject experience, the artifact bridging between the artist and us rather than us and the world. Expression refers to what the artist puts into the artifact, and expressiveness refers to how much of that comes out of the experiencer’s end. For Romantics, this is at the heart of the esthetic experience. For followers of the Enlightenment, it is more of a distraction. They are looking for a solo experience that centers them with respect to the world at large, not a dialectic experience that destabilizes that relationship.

Style

Style is a secondary attribute of esthetics in that one can have style without esthetics, as with a cartoon, as well as esthetics without style, as with a natural landscape. That said, for the Romantics, with their focus on artistic expression, style does indeed “maketh the experience.” It serves as a bridge into the artist’s vision of the world, a way of seeing and being that can be transformative for the experiencer. For the Enlightenment, on the other hand, style is more of a societal asset. It has classic roots in proportion and harmony, attributes that are taken to transcend individual experience, understood instead as autonomously real. Both of these traditions make style more central to art than it was taken to be in the Early Modern period. At that time poetry was said to “teach and delight,” with commentators calling out style—the Elizabethans would have said rhetoric—as one of the chief sources of delight. Indeed, there were handbooks galore about how one could decorate one’s writing and speech with beautiful figures. This represents an early stage of playful euphoria when vernacular languages were displacing Latin across the entire spectrum of European culture.

Today, while all three of these views are still in play, contemporary criticism is often more interested in a fourth—style as a medium for communicating subtext, a mechanism for teasing nuances out of the more overt dimensions of the artwork. Juxtaposition of seemingly unrelated elements reframes our experience of what otherwise would be familiar and taken for granted. The work engages the experiencers’ analytical facilities in the midst of the fantasy experience, a distancing effect that makes them both participant and observer at the same time, accentuating their perception of irony, a cornerstone of the modern esthetic.

Do artworks convey knowledge or truth?

Although this question is intended to help us learn more about art, it introduces two very elusive concepts of its own, namely knowledge and truth, so we need to tread carefully. Nonetheless, the question is a valid one, and we owe it an answer.

To the degree that knowledge and truth are understood to consist of language-enabled statements, the answer is no, artworks do not convey either one. This is the Enlightenment’s position, one that caused it to turn to the concept of taste instead. By contrast, to the degree that knowledge and truth are conceived to transcend language-enabled understanding, meaning that they can reside beyond the scope and ken of reason, then the answer is yes. This is Romanticism’s claim, one that called it to substitute art for religion as a portal to spiritual experience.

Both these positions, however, are unsatisfactory. To be fair, the Enlightenment self-corrected itself in part by directing attention to the sublime, something that since antiquity had always been conceived as transcending reason. But at the end of the day, that did not open any new path to incorporating esthetic experience into one’s overall understanding of the world. The barrier of taste stood firmly in the way. The Romantics, by contrast, embraced transcendence wholeheartedly. Its problem was that it could not access it reliably. That is, neither nature nor art is able to consistently evoke the spiritual refreshment that Romantics value so highly. One is left in a state of anticipation, broken by occasional inspirational moments, but how and when they come at some times and not at others is a mystery. Indeed, the whole claim is a mystery, one that is hard to reconcile with any claims to knowledge or truth.

Contemporary culture, specifically the post-modern wing, dodges these issues by calling into question the reality of both knowledge and truth. Pragmatically, this is just a mistake. The reason we have words for both knowledge and truth is that they represent forces at work in the world that are relevant to our strategies for living. The fact that they are hard to come to grips with does not warrant dismissing them altogether. With that in mind, let us return to our original question: do artworks convey knowledge or truth?

Set aside the incidental communication of information that might accompany an esthetic experience, and focus instead on the experience itself. An external force has, with your permission, taken possession of your faculties and is manipulating your mind to its own ends. This force can be extraordinarily effective at creating belief. Whether that belief represents knowledge or truth cannot be determined from within the experience. Once the experience is over, we can analyze our memory of it, and in that context determine if it warrants being called “justified true belief,” which is philosophy’s gold standard for defining knowledge.

The nature of narrative and metaphor

Narrative and metaphor are two of humanity’s superpowers. Narrative is our most ubiquitous problem-solving tool. Each step in a story implies a cause-and-effect relationship that then can be tested by analytics for credibility. That’s the core function of criticism. Similarly, metaphor is one of our most ubiquitous innovation tools. Each instance proposes a strategic correlation between apparently dissimilar domains, whereby the tactics that have proven successful in the first domain are implicitly applied to address unsolved problems in the second. Again, this too must be tested, either by analytics or experiment.

In this context, what are the esthetic dimensions of narrative and metaphor? What makes for a good story or a good metaphor? I would vote for an experienced tension between expectations and fulfillment which both surprises and enlightens. In narrative, think of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. What we expect is going to happen in that final encounter and what actually does happen is both surprising and enlightening. Similarly, with respect to metaphor, think of Ezra Pound’s “In a Station of the Metro”:

The apparition of these faces in the crowd:

Petals on a wet, black bough.

In this most industrial of situations, we are surprised and enlightened to find a kind of beauty we thought belonged only in nature.

The importance of genre

To the degree that surprise and enlightenment are core to esthetic experience, genre somewhat surprisingly takes center stage. It sets audience expectations through its established conventions. If it is a comedy, we know that our protagonists will be OK in the end; if it is a tragedy, they will not. To the degree that a given work of art fulfills our expectations, we are pleased but not enlightened. Indeed, if there are no deviations at all—what is often called the domain of stock response—we are likely to get bored and maybe even offended. At the other end of the spectrum, if the work refuses to provide any signals as to genre, we typically ignore it as we have not been invited to participate. However, when a work of art creates expectations and then deviates from them as it unfolds, we can experience a variety of reactions—intrigue, annoyance, doubt, curiosity, and others. The point is, it has engaged us. We are having an esthetic experience whether we like it or not.

Genre creates the bulk of its expectations around beginnings and endings, the former inviting us to open up our minds to engage with and be manipulated by an external force, the latter to bring that experience to a close and initiate any reflections we may have about it. The extent to which art invades our privacy is extraordinary, and so it is natural that we have developed defenses against it. Genres offer an implied contract with respect to what is within bounds and what is off limits. This allows us to prepare ourselves for what is to come, including the option of excluding it altogether (I do not watch horror movies, for example).

Norman Holland gave us a great acronym for understanding this relationship: DFT, which stands for Defense, Fantasy, and Transformation. My contribution is to add an E to it, making it DEFT, where E stands for Expectation. The esthetic experience, in other words, unfolds through four stages, as follows:

Defense. Because art is inherently intrusive—indeed, manipulative—we all have psychological defenses against letting it in. The function of movie trailers, book covers, and online reviews is to get us to take down our defensive barrier and let this particular artwork in. We should keep in mind that this is a relatively rare occurrence. Most shows we do not watch. Most books we do not read. Most museums we do not attend.
Expectation. The way art gets past our defenses is by using genre signals to create an expectation of getting an experience we would like. We know we are being “sold,” but we also are looking for experiences of some sort, and so we are potentially willing to “buy.”
Fantasy. This is the pay-off, the essence of the esthetic experience. The term applies most directly to fiction where we internally imagine scenes based on nothing more than words we are reading. But visual and performative arts also enlist our imaginations, personalizing our experiences such that no two are identical, not even when we are the experiencer both times. These experiences are so intimate and engaging that we have developed an entire discipline to help us interpret them. It is called criticism.
Transformation. Transformation is the business of criticism. We seek to extract from the residue of our fantasy experience ideas that we can incorporate into our strategy for living. We do this both through reflection and conversation, but regardless of the mode, the only evidence we have is our memories of the fantasy experience, and every one of those memories is unique, not only in place (whose memory) but also in time of recall (because memories change every time they are reexperienced). Nonetheless, we persist because these memories are now part of who we are, and if we fail to understand them, we fail to understand ourselves.

Genre participates directly in each of the four steps above, helping bypass our defenses (hey, it’s just an action movie), creating expectations (and it’s from the Marvel universe), teeing us up for fantasy (the viewing experience in which we let the movie take over our mind), and triggering a transformation conversation when it is over (I think Iron Man may need some counseling, or maybe I do).

The ontological status of artworks

Art consists of artifacts whose primary purpose is to deliver an experience as opposed to accomplishing a task. Typically, they do so by engaging the imagination of the participant in a fantasy shaped through either a sensory stimulus (painting, sculpture, dance, music, and the like) or a language act (stories, poetry, novels, and the like) or a combination of the two (plays, films, opera, and the like). We assign these artifacts a special status because we evaluate them not only on their craft but also on the quality of the experiences they evoke. Assessing that quality, its impact, and the contribution that craft makes to it is the purpose of esthetics.

The realm of esthetics extends well beyond the fine arts. In contemporary culture, for example, cuisine has taken center stage, for even as it performs a utilitarian task, it also creates emotional experiences of considerable force, particularly when tied to family, ethnic, or personal traditions. Proust’s Madeleine is a famous psychological example, but today the focus is more on cultural ties, where esthetics helps promote cross-cultural connections that can reinforce social cohesion. Similar esthetic circles form around cars and personal attire, really any field of life where identity binds itself to experiences that go beyond utility. The dialog is typically a mixture of the practical and the esthetic, the two fusing into a kind of expertise that goes viral on digital media, which brings us to our last topic.

The character of our emotional responses to art

One way to characterize our responses to art is in relation to our emerging knowledge of how our brains actually work. Our consciousness resides in the neocortex, that part of the brain we see from the outside that looks something like a cauliflower. The neurons in the neocortex are optimized to perform two functions:

Engage with the things and events that are happening around us and initiate appropriate responses to them, and
Imagine how such things and events might be different, and what such differences might lead to in terms of alternative responses.

It turns out that the very same neurons that perform function 1 also perform function 2, which makes for some interesting implications:

Each function trains the other one. That is, experience in the world feeds the imagination with material to work on, and imagined experiences expand the repertoire of alternatives our engagement function can draw upon.
Because the exact same neurons are used in both cases, the functions are mutually exclusive, meaning you can’t engage with the world when you are imagining, and you can’t imagine things when you are engaging with the world.

These implications cast important light on two elements of our response to art. The first is that we are drawn to it naturally. That is, evolution favors constructive use of imagination, and imagination is enhanced by engaging with art. Esthetics in this context investigates the specifics of the attraction itself, what elements in the art motivate us to attend to it, and the impact the experience has on our ability to engage with the world thereafter.

The second point, that we cannot both imagine and engage at the same time, speaks to the question of whether there is a specific attitude one must take in order to appreciate art. The answer is, yes, but it is totally involuntary. The notion that one must train oneself to adopt the appropriate attitude is yet another example of the analytical intellect overstepping its bounds. Analysis is fundamental to Transformation, but it has no role in Fantasy.

Our emotional responses to art touch all four phases of the esthetic experience. That is, our Defense against art we don’t like is driven by an emotional rejection we often are unable to explain. In contrast, our Expectation that some art will please us is driven by desires we are only too willing to explain. Regardless of our expectations, our Fantasy experience is highly varied with respect to emotion, which often correlates with how much or how little we value the art in question. Finally, our Transformation experience seeks to assess the impact of whatever emotion we did experience when recollected in tranquility.

That’s what I think. What do you think?

Click here to Read Part 1 if you missed it

Image Credit: Pexels

Sign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

Aesthetics – Part One

1 Reply

Aesthetics - Part One

GUEST POST from Geoffrey A. Moore

The Infinite Staircase offers readers a metaphysics and an ethics shaped by the 21st century’s understanding of how the world came to be. It has little to say, however about esthetics, and that is too large a part of human experience to neglect. With that in mind, I am going to address the topic in two short essays.

The first essay, the one you have in hand, is an interaction with The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy’s entry on the topic. I found myself constantly quarreling with it, and I wanted to sort out why, hence this piece. What I see now is that I was clearing a space to dig deeper into the issues I truly care about. That’s what the second essay is intended to do.

Of course, this begs the question, do you even need to read this essay? I mean, just because I have to clear my throat before I speak doesn’t mean you have to listen to it. That said, if you are academically oriented, or have ever taken courses in philosophy, I suggest you do read this if only to clarify your own point of view. If, on the other hand, you are simply interested in the nature of the esthetic experience itself, feel free to ignore this piece, but do keep an eye out for the next essay.

Essay #1: A Dialog with Cambridge

NOTE: The format of the dialog is to present the Cambridge material in blockquote format and my responses to it in normal text.

Aesthetics: the branch of philosophy that examines the nature of art and the character of our experience of art and of the natural environment.

The purpose of esthetics, as of any academic discipline, is to investigate a body of forces in order to better understand its nature and determine how best to incorporate it into our strategies for living. In the case of esthetics, the forces under study create psychological experiences, and it is these experiences that provide the data upon which the discipline is based.

Because the concept of experience is central to the understanding of esthetics, we need to get clear about its meaning. In particular, we need to distinguish between two common understandings of the term, one of which is central, the other of which is tangential to our purposes.

Here are the two definitions, taken from the Oxford English Dictionary:

The actual observation of facts or events considered as a source of knowledge.
The fact of being consciously the subject of a state or condition, or of being consciously affected by an event.

Definition 2 is the one that is central to our purpose. We are interested in the impact of an object on a subject, what it is like to be “consciously affected,” something that depends very much on the properties of both the subject and the object. We investigate this experience first by examining the residue of its impact on the subject and then by seeking attributes in the object that account for it.

This is where Definition 1 comes in. It is a tactic we use in pursuing a better understanding of what is happening under Definition 2. But we need to be careful here as we cannot objectively observe the facts in question—they are inherently subjective and can only be contemplated internally or reported externally. That means there can be no purely objective basis for esthetics. We must keep both subject and object in view at all times, focusing specifically on what is happening when we are being internally affected by an externally occasioned event.

It emerged as a separate field of philosophical inquiry during the eighteenth century in England and on the Continent. Recognition of aesthetics as a separate branch of philosophy coincided with the development of theories of art that grouped together painting, poetry, sculpture, music, and dance (and often landscape gardening) as the same kind of thing, les beaux arts, or the fine arts.

The fine arts are indeed all within the scope of esthetics. As a group, however, they are highly refined. Their force tends to be more ethereal than many people can experience, particularly modern audiences that are more global and less privileged than the eighteenth century thinkers who created the concept initially. As a result, we should not position the fine arts as the centerpoint of our category but rather at one end of a more inclusive spectrum, albeit one we have as yet to define.

Baumgarten coined the term ‘aesthetics’ in his Reflections on Poetry (1735) as the name for one of the two branches of the study of knowledge, i.e. for the study of sensory experience coupled with feeling, which he argued provided a different type of knowledge from the distinct, abstract ideas studied by “logic.” He derived it from the ancient Greek aisthanomai (to perceive), and “the aesthetic” has always been intimately connected with sensory experience and the kinds of feelings it arouses.

“Sensory experience coupled with feeling” is as good a starting point as any for capturing the full spectrum of aesthetic experience. It is still too general, as there are many such experiences that are not aesthetic, but it gives us a point of departure. The challenge is that when we try to convert any such experience into knowledge, of necessity we must express ourselves in language, and this can be confusing because the experience itself is pre-linguistic.

That is, to use the framework of The Infinite Staircase, sensory experience coupled with feeling takes place on the stairs of desire, consciousness, values, and culture—all prior to the stairs of language, narrative, analytics, and theory. When we use these higher stairs to explain what is happening on the lower ones, we are prone to imposing their structure in ways that ride roughshod over the subtleties of the actual experience. This is reflected throughout the list of questions that follow.

Questions specific to the field of esthetics are: Is there a special attitude, the aesthetic attitude, which we should take toward works of art and the natural environment, and what is it like?

The answer is no. This is an example of analytics seeking to reposition experiences that arise from below by proposing that they descend from above. That is, the refined analytical intellect is positioning itself at the center of an experience during which it was not even present. This is a big mistake, one that implies aesthetic experiences are reserved for the few who possess refined sensibilities when in fact they are universal.

Is there a distinctive type of experience, an aesthetic experience, and what is it?

The answer is yes, and in the lexicon of philosophy, it falls into the category of qualia. The entry on qualia from Wikipedia provides a useful introduction, defining it as subjective conscious experiences, examples of which include the perceived sensation of pain of a headache, the taste of wine, and the redness of an evening sky. As qualitative characteristics of sensation, qualia stand in contrast to propositional attitudes, where the focus is on beliefs about experience rather than what it is directly like to be experiencing.

Now, to be fair, pain does not qualify as an aesthetic experience, but the taste of wine and the color of red certainly do. The key point is that all the examples stand in contrast to propositional attitudes, the domain of analytics, which can be about aesthetic experience but not integral to it.

Is there a special object of attention that we can call the aesthetic object?

Yes, there is. It is whatever body of forces that are creating the impact on the subject, be that the wine, the evening sky, a painting, a story, or a piece of wood. But the object alone cannot be said to be inherently aesthetic. Only after it has evoked a sensory experience coupled with feeling can it be so termed, and then only with respect to subjects in whom that experience has been evoked.

Finally, is there a distinctive value, aesthetic value, comparable with moral, epistemic, and religious values?

Yes, there is. To put things in perspective

Moral value consists of behavior that is beneficial to others and consistent with social norms.
Epistemic value consists of justified true beliefs that lead to effective action in the world.
Religious value consists of spiritual experiences and commitments that provide sacred and undeniable guidelines for life in the world.

In such a context, aesthetic value consists of pleasurable, contemplative, non-utilitarian, resonating experiences that we characterize as beautiful, refreshing, and inspiring.

Some questions overlap with those in the philosophy of art, such as those concerning the nature of beauty, and whether there is a faculty of taste that is exercised in judging the aesthetic character and value of natural objects or works of art.

The nature of beauty is indeed an elusive topic, one where we need to be humble, but with respect to the faculty of taste, we can be more assertive. In the eighteenth century, judgments of taste were appropriated by a social class that privileged refinement and intellect over sensibility and joy. In the nineteenth century, the Romantic movement aggressively worked to overthrow and reverse this polarity, and in the twentieth, cultural relativism worked to deny the validity of any aesthetic judgments that extended beyond the personal preferences of the person making them within the norms of the culture they are inhabiting. All three positions contain an element of truth, and none by itself does a good job of accounting for the overall nature of beauty. The good news is that they are not incompatible with one another, so a synthesis of all three can potentially provide a stable foundation for esthetic theory.

Aesthetics also encompasses the philosophy of art. The most central issue in the philosophy of art has been how to define ‘art’. Not all cultures have, or have had, a concept of art that coincides with the one that emerged in Western Europe during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. What justifies our applying our concept to the things people in these other cultures have produced?

It is justifiable to apply our concepts to our experience of things other cultures have produced and how they stack up against our cultural norms. We just should not apply them to their experiences or the status of the things in their culture. The temptation to do so derives from seeking to locate the aesthetic force solely in the object. That is not a tenable claim.

There are also many pictures (including paintings), songs, buildings, and bits of writing that are not art. What distinguishes those pictures, musical works, etc., that are art from those that are not?

They do not evoke the pleasurable, contemplative, non-utilitarian, resonating experiences we call beautiful, refreshing, and inspiring.

Various answers have been proposed that identify the distinguishing features of art in terms of form, expressiveness, intentions of the maker, and social roles or uses of the object.

None of these topics is off limits, but each one can take us down a rabbit hole if we try to use it as definitive of what constitutes art. That begs the question of how we would define art, but we will leave that to the second essay.

Since the eighteenth century, there have been debates about what kinds of things count as “art.” Some have argued that architecture and ceramics are not art because their functions are primarily utilitarian, and novels were for a long time not listed among the “fine arts” because they are not embodied in a sensuous medium. Debates continue to arise over new media and what may be new art forms, such as film, video, photography, performance art, found art, furniture, posters, earthworks, and computer and electronic art. Sculptures these days may be made out of dirt, feces, or various discarded and mass-produced objects, rather than marble or bronze. There is often an explicit rejection of craft and technique by twentieth-century artists, and the subject matter has expanded to include the banal and everyday, and not merely mythological, historical, and religious subjects as in years past. All of these developments raise questions about the relevance of the category of “fine” or “high” art.

When discussing esthetics in general, over-rotating to fine or high art is simply a mistake. It is a valid subcategory, but not to the exclusion of other sensory experiences coupled with esthetic feelings. Once again, we see the analytical intellect overstepping its bounds, seeking to impose itself as an arbiter of aesthetic value when its proper role is to be an interpreter of aesthetic experience.

Another set of issues in philosophy of art concerns how artworks are to be interpreted, appreciated, and understood. Some views emphasize that artworks are products of individual efforts, so that a work should be understood in light of the producer’s knowledge, skill, and intentions. Others see the meaning of a work as established by social conventions and practices of the artist’s own time, but which may not be known or understood by the producer. Still, others see meaning as established by the practices of the users, even if they were not in effect when the work was produced. Are there objective criteria or standards for evaluating individual artworks?

All these views are legitimate in their own right, provided we surface the context in which the judgment is made. What is not legitimate is to overrule a rival approach, asserting one’s own as the only valid one. Overall, the goal is to get as much insight as possible into the body of forces at work in an esthetic experience, any way we can.

There has been much disagreement over whether value judgments have universal validity, or whether there can be no disputing about taste if value judgments are relative to the tastes and interests of each individual (or to some group of individuals who share the same tastes and interests). A judgment such as “This is good” certainly seems to make a claim about the work itself, though such a claim is often based on the sort of feeling, understanding, or experience a person has obtained from the work. A work’s aesthetic or artistic value is generally distinguished from simply liking it. But is it possible to establish what sort(s) of knowledge or experience(s) any given work should provide to any suitably prepared perceiver, and what would it be to be suitably prepared?

With respect to this question, we should acknowledge that university degree programs in the humanities do purport to teach this kind of knowledge and thereby suitably prepare the perceiver to appreciate the works being studied. As a practical exercise, this is invaluable. Where things can go astray is when the judgment “this is good” floats free of its moorings in culture-specific subject-object relationships and imposes itself as objective fact.

It is a matter of contention whether a work’s aesthetic and artistic values are independent of its moral, political, or epistemic stance or impact.

They are independent. Clearly works of art can have moral, political, or epistemic dimensions, but these are outboard of the aesthetic dimension. When criticism seeks to interpret art through these kinds of filters, be they Marxist, feminist, deconstructionist, or the like, we have left the realm of the humanities behind and ceded authority instead to the social sciences.

Philosophy of art has also dealt with the nature of taste, beauty, imagination, creativity, representation, expression, and expressiveness; style; whether artworks convey knowledge or truth; the nature of narrative and metaphor; the importance of genre; the ontological status of artworks; and the character of our emotional responses to art.

The paragraph above represents a laundry list of what for me are all the interesting topics. It warrants an entire essay of its own. That will be the subject of the essay to follow.

Work in the field has always been influenced by philosophical theories of language or meaning, and theories of knowledge and perception, and continues to be heavily influenced by psychological and cultural theory, including versions of semiotics, psychoanalysis, cognitive psychology, feminism, and Marxism.

Here we see more ceding of authority to the social sciences. It is not that they have nothing to add. It is that they are appropriating the aesthetic experience to promote another agenda. That agenda may indeed be worthwhile, but it cannot substitute for aesthetic analysis.

Some theorists in the late twentieth century have denied that the aesthetic and the “fine arts” can legitimately be separated out and understood as separate, autonomous human phenomena; they argue instead that these conceptual categories themselves manifest and reinforce certain kinds of cultural attitudes and power relationships. These theorists urge that aesthetics can and should be eliminated as a separate field of study, and that “the aesthetic” should not be conceived as a special kind of value. They favor instead a critique of the roles that images (not only painting, but film, photography, and advertising), sounds, narrative, and three-dimensional constructions have in expressing and shaping human attitudes and experiences.

And this is the ultimate ceding of authority to the social sciences, to which I am viscerally opposed.

That’s what I think. What do you think?

Part Two coming soon!

Image Credit: Pexels

Sign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.