Hostname: page-component-54dcc4c588-hp6zs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-09-12T01:02:13.596Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Old and Appreciated: Exploring the Influence of Material Ageing on the Aesthetic Appreciation of Everyday Products

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 May 2022

C. Ranscombe ,
J. Blijlevens  and
C. Thurgood
C. Ranscombe*
Affiliation:
Swinburne University of Technology, Australia
J. Blijlevens
Affiliation:
RMIT University, Australia
C. Thurgood
Affiliation:
Swinburne University of Technology, Australia
*
cranscombe@swin.edu.au

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

There is a growing interest in design research to explore sustainable consumption via products that are cherished as they age. This paper presents an empirical study exploring the influence of patina (signs of surface aging) on consumers’ willingness to discard products and aesthetic appreciation. Results show participants are predisposed to discard everyday products regardless aesthetic qualities (patina). This implies designers should look beyond the presence of pure aesthetic qualities of aging and emphasise symbolic qualities of aging to stimulate appreciation as products age.

Keywords

product designmaterial agingsustainable designpatinaaesthetics

Information

Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 2: DESIGN2022 , May 2022 , pp. 2213 - 2222
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2022.

References

Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J. & Bates, D. M. 2008. Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of memory and language, 59, 390–412. 10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blijlevens, J., Thurgood, C., Hekkert, P., Chen, L.-L., Leder, H. & Whitfield, T. 2017. The Aesthetic Pleasure in Design Scale: The development of a scale to measure aesthetic pleasure for designed artifacts. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 11, 86. 10.1037/aca0000098.Google Scholar
Bridgens, B. & Lilley, D. 2017. Understanding material change: Design for appropriate product lifetimes. 10.3233/978-1-61499-820-4-54.Google Scholar
Carbon, C. C. & Leder, H. 2005. The repeated evaluation technique (RET). A method to capture dynamic effects of innovativeness and attractiveness. Applied Cognitive Psychology: The Official Journal of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 19, 587–601. 10.1002/acp.1098.Google Scholar
Carson, R. J. & Beeson, C. M. 2013. Crossing language barriers: Using crossed random effects modelling in psycholinguistics research. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 9, 25–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, J. 2009. Design for (emotional) durability. Design Issues, 25, 29–35. 10.1162/desi.2009.25.4.29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, J. 2014. Meaningful stuff: Toward longer lasting products. Materials Experience. Elsevier. 10.1016/B978-0-08-099359-1.00010-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, T. 2016. Longer lasting products: Alternatives to the throwaway society, CRC Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Creusen, M. E. H. & Schoormans, J. P. L. 2005. The different roles of product appearance in consumer choice*. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22, 63–81. 10.1111/j.0737-6782.2005.00103.xGoogle Scholar
CrillY, N. Y, N., Moultrie, J. & Clarkson, P. J. 2004. Seeing things: consumer response to the visual domain in product design. Design Studies, 25, 547–577. 10.1016/j.destud.2004.03.001.Google Scholar
Giaccardi, E., Karana, E., Robbins, H. & D'olivo, P. Growing traces on objects of daily use: a product design perspective for HCI. Proceedings of the 2014 conference on Designing interactive systems, 2014. 473–482. 10.1145/2598510.2602964.Google Scholar
Haines-Gadd, M., Chapman, J., Lloyd, P., Mason, J. & Aliakseyeu, D. 2018. Emotional durability design nine—A tool for product longevity. Sustainability, 10, 1948. 10.3390/su10061948.Google Scholar
Haug, A. 2018. Defining ‘resilient design'in the context of consumer products. The Design Journal, 21, 15–36. 10.1080/14606925.2018.1395265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hekkert, P., Snelders, D. & Wieringen, P. C. 2003. ‘Most advanced, yet acceptable’: typicality and novelty as joint predictors of aesthetic preference in industrial design. British Journal of Psychology, 94, 111–124. 10.1348/000712603762842147.Google ScholarPubMed
Judd, C. M., Westfall, J. & Kenny, D. A. 2012. Treating stimuli as a random factor in social psychology: A new and comprehensive solution to a pervasive but largely ignored problem. Journal of personality and social psychology, 103, 54. https://doi.10.1037/a0028347.Google ScholarPubMed
Karana, E., Barati, B., Rognoli, V. & Zeeuw Van Der Laan, A. 2015. Material driven design (MDD): A method to design for material experiences.Google Scholar
Lee, M.-H., Cha, S. & Nam, T.-J. Patina engraver: Visualizing activity logs as patina in fashionable trackers. Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2015. 1173–1182. 10.1145/2702123.2702213.Google Scholar
Lee, M.-H., Son, O. & Nam, T.-J. Patina-inspired personalization: personalizing products with traces of daily use. Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems, 2016. 251–263. 10.1145/2901790.2901812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lilley, D., Bridgens, B., Davies, A. & Holstov, A. 2019. Ageing (dis) gracefully: Enabling designers to understand material change. Journal of Cleaner Production, 220, 417–430. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lilley, D., Manley, A. H., Bridgens, B., Hurn, K. & Lofthouse, V. Worn out or worn in? How cosmetic wear affects semantic appraisals of materials. 2016. NordiCHI.Google Scholar
Odom, W., Pierce, J., Stolterman, E. & Blevis, E. Understanding why we preserve some things and discard others in the context of interaction design. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2009. 1053–1062. 10.1145/1518701.1518862.Google Scholar
Orth, D., Thurgood, C. & Hoven, E. V. D. 2019. Designing meaningful products in the digital age: How users value their technological possessions. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 26, 1–28. 10.1145/3341980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pedgley, O., Şener, B., Lilley, D. & Bridgens, B. 2018. Embracing material surface imperfections in product design. International Journal of Design.Google Scholar
Rognoli, V. & Karana, E. 2014. Toward a new materials aesthetic based on imperfection and graceful aging. Materials Experience. Elsevier. 10.1016/B978-0-08-099359-1.00011-4Google Scholar
WastielS, L. S, L., Schifferstein, H. N., Heylighen, A. & Wouters, I. 2012. Red or rough, what makes materials warmer? Materials & Design, 42, 441–449. 10.1016/j.matdes.2012.06.028.Google Scholar