lotsofplants (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
lotsofplants) wrote2005-10-12 03:36 pm
lotsofplants) wrote2005-10-12 03:36 pm
small rant on aesthetics and functionality
I appreciate aesthetics.
The clean lines of furniture.
The graceful curve of a vase.
Textural contrast of fabrics, or the splash of color of art framed by clean bare wall.
I appreciate functionality.
The shape of a tool, optimal for the job at hand.
The precision of the gears in a mechanism.
Finding the right object for the purpose, one which will fulfill the need and is neither too much nor too little.
Why do so few things seem to be designed with both? Is it really so much to ask that the design of an item consider such simple things as how use will actually occur, and possible problems the design would contribute to? Or making portions of an item standard sizes, for easy repair and replacement? Or noting that the object will need to be cleaned frequently, and eliminating portions of the design which will make cleaning more difficult?
This grumbling brought to you by my roommate's butter dish, a truly disturbing article manufactured for the 'paint it yourself!' market and with no consideration of the use to which such a thing is typically put, resulting in little ridges perfect for accidentally collecting butter and difficult to clean. I don't think it will get used again, if I have any control over the matter.
The clean lines of furniture.
The graceful curve of a vase.
Textural contrast of fabrics, or the splash of color of art framed by clean bare wall.
I appreciate functionality.
The shape of a tool, optimal for the job at hand.
The precision of the gears in a mechanism.
Finding the right object for the purpose, one which will fulfill the need and is neither too much nor too little.
Why do so few things seem to be designed with both? Is it really so much to ask that the design of an item consider such simple things as how use will actually occur, and possible problems the design would contribute to? Or making portions of an item standard sizes, for easy repair and replacement? Or noting that the object will need to be cleaned frequently, and eliminating portions of the design which will make cleaning more difficult?
This grumbling brought to you by my roommate's butter dish, a truly disturbing article manufactured for the 'paint it yourself!' market and with no consideration of the use to which such a thing is typically put, resulting in little ridges perfect for accidentally collecting butter and difficult to clean. I don't think it will get used again, if I have any control over the matter.
no subject
no subject
no subject
And one of my favorite guiding lights EVER, right up there with "measure twice, cut once":
"You know you've achieved perfection in design, not when you have nothing more to add, but when you have nothing more to take away."
-- Antoine de Saint Exupery
no subject
no subject
Stop what you are doing, and go read _The Timeless Way of Building_ by Christopher Alexander.
Then help me come to a conclusion about whether he's an uebergenius, or just tripped out at Berkeley way too long.
There is a handful of shiny Polish Grozy coins in it for you. ;)
~R~
no subject
http://www.livejournal.com/users/ziptie/44538.html