An ugly tool may work (smashing nuts with a broken stone). A beautiful
tool may not work at all ("fantasy" knives come to mind, or some
concept cars).
And either could be more or less functional - just depends.
But, beauty adds to the joy of using the tool, and thus to the
willingness to use it, and thereby the ability to create efficient and
useful products in an efficient manner.
Even the "beautiful ugliness" of a well-designed war implement is
intended to create a specific result in both the wielder (power &
confidence) and the victim (fear & helplessness) that is separate but
allied with the "obvious" result (such as spitting bullets, splitting
skulls or fending off blows)...
So, I side with those who seek to add some form of beauty (or
elegance) to a tool, even if some fraction of that _may_ seem like
mere ornamentation.
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Marcus Hammerschmitt <marcus.hammerschmitt@t-online.de>
> Am 22.05.2008 um 22:10 schrieb Martin Joseph:
>
>> although adding decorations might be "pretty" it in NO
>> WAY makes things easier or more accessible.
>
> It think it was my point that good decoration goes
> beyond being pretty. ... What I mean is: the
> structural and the aesthetic aspect of design meeting
> to create something beautiful. Almost in a way some
> scientists require good science to be true *and* elegant.
====================================================================
The NewtonTalk Mailing List - http://www.newtontalk.net/
The Official Newton FAQ - http://www.splorp.com/newton/faq/
The Newton Glossary - http://www.splorp.com/newton/glossary/
WikiWikiNewt - http://tools.unna.org/wikiwikinewt/
====================================================================
Received on Thu May 22 18:02:18 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu May 22 2008 - 18:30:00 EDT