Emarah, B., El-Araby, M., El Ghamry, W. (2025). Augmented Reality as a Philosophical Tool for Redefining Aesthetics in Environmental Design. International Design Journal, 15(4), 281-288. doi: 10.21608/idj.2025.382729.1327
Bassant Emarah; Mohamed El-Araby; Waleed El Ghamry. "Augmented Reality as a Philosophical Tool for Redefining Aesthetics in Environmental Design". International Design Journal, 15, 4, 2025, 281-288. doi: 10.21608/idj.2025.382729.1327
Emarah, B., El-Araby, M., El Ghamry, W. (2025). 'Augmented Reality as a Philosophical Tool for Redefining Aesthetics in Environmental Design', International Design Journal, 15(4), pp. 281-288. doi: 10.21608/idj.2025.382729.1327
Emarah, B., El-Araby, M., El Ghamry, W. Augmented Reality as a Philosophical Tool for Redefining Aesthetics in Environmental Design. International Design Journal, 2025; 15(4): 281-288. doi: 10.21608/idj.2025.382729.1327
Augmented Reality as a Philosophical Tool for Redefining Aesthetics in Environmental Design
1Assistant Lecturer, Faculty of Creative Arts, University of Hertfordshire- Cairo, Egypt
2Professor of Environmental Design and Landscape Architecture Program Director of Interior Architecture, King Salman International University – Egypt Former Head of the Decoration Department, Faculty of Applied Arts, Helwan University
3Associate Professor, Decoration Department, Faculty of Applied Arts, Helwan University – Egypt
Abstract
This research explores the role of augmented reality (AR) as a contemporary technological tool that redefines aesthetic concepts in environmental design. By integrating digital elements into architectural and heritage environments, AR enhances users’ visual and sensory experiences without compromising cultural identity or distorting the authenticity of place. The study aims to understand how this technology can be thoughtfully employed to support aesthetic values and sustain the connection between humans and their environment in the context of accelerating digital innovation. The research problem stems from a philosophical inquiry into whether AR can balance aesthetic expression and environmental sustainability without disrupting the natural experience or allowing the virtual to overshadow the real. The research objectives are to investigate how AR can enrich spatial aesthetics while maintaining cultural and ecological integrity and to propose a framework for responsible use in heritage and environmental contexts. The significance of the research lies in its integration of philosophical perspectives with practical applications, offering both theoretical insight and real-world relevance. It contributes to filling a gap in literature that connects AR technologies with sustainable and culturally responsive design. A descriptive-analytical methodology was used, involving literature review and analysis of case studies from heritage sites where AR was implemented effectively. The results show that AR, when carefully applied, can significantly improve the aesthetic and functional experience of spaces. It deepens user engagement with the environment while preserving authenticity and reinforcing the relationship between people and place.
7. Azuma, R. (1997). A survey of augmented reality. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 6(4), 355–385. 8. Azuma, R., Baillot, Y., Behringer, R., Feiner, S., Julier, S., & MacIntyre, B. (2001). Recent advances in augmented reality. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 21(6), 34–47. 9. Baudrillard, J. (1981). Simulacra and simulation. Semiotext(e). 10. Baudrillard, J. (1994). The illusion of the end. Stanford University Press. 11. Bolter, J. D., & Grusin, R. (1999). Remediation: Understanding new media. MIT Press. 12. Borgmann, A. (1984). Technology and the character of contemporary life: A philosophical inquiry. University of Chicago Press. 13. Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society. Blackwell. 14. Clark, A. (2003). Natural-born cyborgs: Minds, technologies, and the future of human intelligence. Oxford University Press. 15. Dourish, P. (2001). Where the action is: The foundations of embodied interaction. MIT Press. 16. Ellul, J. (1964). The technological society. Vintage Books. 17. Feenberg, A. (2002). Transforming technology: A critical theory revisited. Oxford University Press. 18. Floridi, L. (2014). The 4th revolution: How the infosphere is reshaping human reality. Oxford University Press. 19. Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Pantheon Books. 20. Grau, O. (2003). Virtual art: From illusion to immersion. MIT Press. 21. Han, D. I., & Dieck, M. C. T. (2020). Sustainability through AR: Enhancing ecological awareness in design. International Journal of Sustainable Design, 10(1), 45–63. 22. Heidegger, M. (1977). The question concerning technology. Harper & Row. 23. Ihde, D. (1990). Technology and the lifeworld: From garden to earth. Indiana University Press. 24. Kant, I. (1781). Critique of pure reason (N. Kemp Smith, Trans.). Palgrave Macmillan. 25. Kant, I. (1790). Critique of judgment. Oxford University Press. 26. Kim, J., & Lee, H. (2024). Augmented reality and emotional response in environmental design. Journal of Digital Experience, 6(1), 12–29. 27. Kim, Y. G., & Kim, W. J. (2014). Implementation of augmented reality system for smartphones advertisements. International Journal of Multimedia and Ubiquitous Engineering, 9(2), 385–392. 28. Manovich, L. (2001). The language of new media. MIT Press. 29. Marx, K. (1867). Das Kapital. Verlag von Otto Meissner. 30. Milgram, P., & Kishino, F. (1994). A taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays. IEICE Transactions on Information and Systems, E77-D(12), 1321–1329. 31. Plato’s Middle Period Metaphysics and Epistemology. (n.d.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-metaphysics/ Accessed 9/4/2025 12:09 PM 32. Riepl, R. (2020). Augmented reality in archaeological tourism: The case of Carnuntum. Journal of Digital Heritage, 5(2), 45–60. 33. Rouse, R., & Zec, M. (2022). Experiencing environmental aesthetics through augmented reality landscapes. Interaction Design and Architecture(s), 52, 98–111. 34. Speicher, M., Hall, B. D., & Nebeling, M. (2019). What is mixed reality? In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–15). https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300767 35. Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. Basic Books. 36. Tussyadiah, I., & Wang, D. (2023). Digital aesthetics in hybrid spaces: AR as a tool for design engagement. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 87, 101964. 37. Verbeek, P.-P. (2011). Moralizing technology: Understanding and designing the morality of things. University of Chicago Press. 38. Winner, L. (1986). The whale and the reactor. University of Chicago Press. 39. Yung, E. H. K., & Khoo-Lattimore, C. (2021). Augmented reality and urban heritage: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Urban Technology, 28(2), 3–29. 40. Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. PublicAffairs.
View on SCiNiTO
Top