From this week’s reading, I want to respond to Principle 1.13 in Artful Design which states: ‘Design is HUMAN’. The principle truly inspired my thoughts on the human perception of aesthetics. I couldn’t agree more with the statement in the book ‘aesthetics is for what we live’. However, if we think about our perception of ‘beauty’, do we consider an object ‘beautiful’ because it is periodic, symmetric, sequential, or because it is chaotic? If the answer is the prior, then is the natural world periodic, symmetric, or sequential? If no two leaves are the same, then are we born with the ability to understand aesthetics, or do we gain this ability when we grow up (nature or nurture)? I believe both are true, but the latter takes a bigger part. But when we see Yosemite vs architectural designs by Mies, what are the different things in our brain that make us consider both to be beautiful? Eventually if we say ‘Design is HUMAN’, then what is human? In my opinion, design is a iterative process. We shape our perception of aesthetics after being told what is beautiful, and evolve our opinion on the standard. It changes with the irreversible advancement of technology (use of concrete and steel in modern architecture) and human development (religious art are less prominent now), but it also cycles back when we look back into our lives (the cyclic pattern of fashion), and even the human history (collection and imitation of ancient artifacts). Design should follow human needs and intuition, but design also shapes human needs and perception.