Beauty In Super Normal

Super Normal, from a conceptual point of view, leans on an intentional and extraordinary ambivalence (Fukasawa & Morrison). Specifically, based on the terminology, it could be taken both as an oxymoron that ‘super’ opposes ‘normal’, referring to ‘beyond’ or ‘above’; also a concept of absolute superlative in which the Super Normal determines the superlative of normality to its greatest degree in its ontological form. Although the etymology of what is considered ‘normal’ relates to ‘ordinary’ with no features, in the context of what Fukusawa and Morrison defined as Super Normal designs are not ‘normal’ any more by making them so ‘normal’, they become both ‘normal’ and ‘exceptional’, pushing the norm to the boundaries of the possible and introjecting

Here, the term ‘beauty’ involves both form, shape and the relationship among people, environment, and the circumstances. Not that there is anything wrong with beauty in Super Normal: on the contrary, it provides daily life with pleasant and inspirations. Donald Norman, an American Product designer, in his book Emotional Design mentions, the beauty of a product can elicit positive emotions such as pleasure and these can alter how we think and behave. Interacting with a pleasing, attractive product “the behavior seems to go along more smoothly, more easily, and better (Norman, 2002). attractive things make people feel good resulting in a positive emotional state. Appreciated aesthetics in turn opens up the cognitive system making people think more creatively and solutions to problems become easier to find. Thus, based on the work of Norman, happy people are more effective in finding alternative solutions and tolerant of minor difficulties. These effects are central to measures of usability and their positive nature indicates a positive role for aesthetics in

One is illustrated by the aesthetic differences between two typefaces that are included in most computers: Arial and Helvetica. Arial’s ubiquity is not due to its beauty. In fact, it is more than a copy of Helvetica (). Mark Simonson, an American graphic designer, produced an analysis of the two, which shows how much more refined Helvetica’s detailing is than Arial’s. The tail of the ‘a’ is gently curved in Helvetica, as is the first connection of the bowl to the stem, but not in Arial. Similarly, the top of the ‘t’ and the ends of the strokes in the ‘C’ and ‘S’ are perfectly horizontal in the former, but slightly angled in the latter. He also noted that the stem of Helvetica is more complex in the structure than those in Arial. The distinguishing details are so tiny that you can only see them if you scrutinize magnified versions of each character as Simonson did. Only a handful of the millions of people who use either typeface will ever look closely enough to notice them. Yet it is these subtleties that constitute Helvetica a finer example of design than Arial for professionals. Functionally the two fonts are roughly equal, as both are admirable clear and easy to read, but aesthetically Helvetica is superior and considered to be Super