The Nightmare Aesthetic Replacement

 

Many decades ago, I sailed a catamaran called a Quest B2, a super functional sailboat, shaped like a long machete, designed to handle choppy seas and big waves … she was based on the winning Little America’s Cup boat Quest … in fact I bought it from that Denmark series winner.

How did she sail? Phenomenally, pedigree, as you’d expect. However, sheer classical beauty was not one of the design criteria. The old J Boats though … Thomas Lipton and so on … now they were sheer beauties. The old tall ships too, clippers, schooners … dreams to look at, like women at their best.

So the question is … can function have beautiful form? And my answer is … yes, in the hands of the old aesthetes … but never in the hands of the “modern” designers and practitioners. And this flows over into the subtheme of my blog, my X account, anything I’ve ever tried.

The girl in the YT below is speaking more of function versus form, another question … and yet a valid question. It can be argued that she scores on both counts … function plus form.

You might recall Friday 17 on the topic of Cracker Barrel. Plus today’s Saturday 10. Plus Lord of the Rings last book, last chapters, when Sharkey had tried to replace homes with barracks, had cut down the town’s big, beautiful tree. It’s also those using Helvetica typeface over, say, Bookman Old Style.

I too have succumbed to a point … this is Arial you are reading now. The simplicity is the idea here … calligraphy, though beautiful, is difficult reading after a while.

Some comments:

The ugliness of those three Cracker Barrel women, esp. inside … imagine you could photograph their souls … also comes through in this ugliness Julia calls out:

2 replies on “The Nightmare Aesthetic Replacement”

  1. Oddly, on form and function I thought of a steam locomotive from the steam era. Every part was designed and built to perform at its functional best. It’s not beautiful, except perhaps to a mechanical engineer who can admire the workings and workmanship involved. And yet it has such an impressive elegance, strength and majesty, and even a character, that transcends its basically utilitarian, functional appearance. The ultimate antithesis of ‘cheap and nasty’ can perhaps be beautiful in its own odd way? She is quite correct but it’s a complicated subject.

Leave a Reply to A K Haart Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *