Which is more cooler -- things built for efficiency (yes) or things done in beauty (no)?

Asked by: Adam2
  • The ones that are cheaper

    Tend to be a little bit more cool and daring. Beautiful stuff can get boring after awhile. The Old World, for instance, can easily get very boring after being there for a while. Living in America tends to be more awesome because we're not stuck in the Old World mentality that easily.

  • Efficiency first, then we can consider beauty

    Beauty is only skin deep. Furthermore beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Beauty is a worthwhile consideration, but should not come at the expense of efficiency. The important thing is that things work. Would you like medical tools to be designed to look pretty or to do their job the most effectively?

    Same for structures. If making a bridge or a building prettier makes it more likely to topple over then obviously we should prefer efficiency over beauty in that case. Doesn't mean we shouldn't make bridges and buildings that look aesthetically pleasing, just that efficiency should be the first priority and then without sacrificing efficiency we can consider beauty.

  • Aesthetics trumps Efficiency:

    All things equal and being practical who buys an ugly car, ugly house, or ugly pet just because they are "sufficient"? Efficiency means nothing without being aesthetic; form has almost always triumphed over function (thus why we have clothing fashions and art as a species) since that beautiful golden spiraling wonder of a paperweight is equivalent to a dirty little rock outside that would cost no time, no effort, and no energy to really replace the sculpture.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.