|
|
Posted by asdf on 10/01/89 12:01
"dorayme" <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:doraymeRidThis-04DF90.10592428012008@news-vip.optusnet.com.au...
> In article
> <479d1793$0$9770$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
> "asdf" <asdf@asdf.com> wrote:
>
>> "dorayme" <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:doraymeRidThis-9D497D.08120528012008@news-vip.optusnet.com.au...
>> > In article
>> > <479c2a7a$0$9758$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
>> > "asdf" <asdf@asdf.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Is that a fair summary?
>> >
>> > No. You have bought the not very clear or coherent Boji
>> > distinction between "engineering" and "design" hook, line and
>> > sinker. You do not clarify it but simply repeat it.
>> >
>>
>> Who said I was summarising to placate you? LMGDAO
>
> I had not meant to imply you were. Keep your shirt on. Let me put
> it more diplomatically, asdf, I think you are adopting a
> distinction that is open to serious criticism. <g>
>
I understand your position that engineering perfection can be beautiful.
What I don't buy, however, is that it is not always the case that a
perfectly engineered piece is *necessarily* beautiful. Sure, I can
appreciate "logical" beauty, but the hoary old phrase "Beauty is in the eye
of the beholder" is still true.
For you a wrench is beautiful (as you state in a prior post). I can
appreciate the beauty of it's design, and it's fitness for purpose, but I do
not find it, as an object, intrinsically 'beautiful'.
Design (as I and many others understand it), is more than perfect
engineering. If it were not so, the world would be devoid of art (for
instance), and be a sadder place for it.
Producing a well designed and engineered piece is as much about
*communication* of an idea or style, as it is about fulfilling a functional
specification.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|