|
|
Posted by dorayme on 01/25/08 00:49
In article
<479921de$0$17209$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
"asdf" <asdf@asdf.com> wrote:
> "dorayme" <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:doraymeRidThis-CF4146.07373425012008@news-vip.optusnet.com.au...
> > In article <Xns9A2F87C91AB5Cnanopandaneredbojias@85.214.90.236>,
> > Neredbojias <monstersquasher@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Seriously, however, I'm not particularly attracted to a well-engineered
> >> vehicle with an uninspired design and neither are most consumers.
> >
> > What would an example of such a vehicle be?
> >
> > --
> > dorayme
>
> Hmm... let's see now...
>
> Landrover Defender
> Toyota Landcruiser
>
> ..vehicles that look pretty ugly, but are very good at what they do. That's
> why they sell to their niche in the market.
Lets take these two then. They are not real good in being as
efficient as they might be because their wind resistance is high
- for starters. This is the makers dispensing with a function,
not just "not attending to some pretty thing" to the eye. In fact
it is probably ugly because they did try to make it nice to the
eye! A lot of people, think they look nice.
What I wanted was a case of something that was *perfect* in its
function but ugly as hell. Ask yourself why there might be a
dearth of these. The reason lies in the deeper aethetics of a
design being fit for real use. Ugly buildings are almost
invariably ones that are badly designed function wise.
--
dorayme
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|