Poll: Aesthetics vs function

[shootthebandit]

For me it has to be function. I see the Nissan GTR and yes, it doesn't look like sex buuuuut it's so fast and so well priced, its function poops all over its looks.

Such beautiful function. I look at facts and figures when I consider cars. My car at the minute I bought not for its looks (although I deliberately bought one with a spoiler) but because it was fast. Theres nothing worse than when someone tells you what car they drive (usually women) so you ask "which one" and they say "the red one"

 

[dragonswarrior]

I choose option 3: Function is aesthetically pleasing.

 

[Burgers2013]

It really depends. I said function because the object has to work on some level or there's no reason for owning it. However, I would accept lower levels of functionality in some things for aesthetics. I guess I'd separate the to into groups of things that I "need" versus things that I want. Need isn't exactly the right word (I don't "need" a couch, but function is much more important for a couch than say, a picture frame). Things I want can have a range of functionality and aesthetics.

Things that I need would be objects I use for everyday functioning: furniture, appliances, car, etc.

Things that I want would include: video games, movies, books, decor, music etc.

For games, I'll happily overlook buggy mechanics (especially for indie developers) to experience an interesting/unique narrative, style, or environment. I will not tolerate a car that needs to frequent the mechanic regardless of how much it resembles sex.

 

[an annoyed writer]

This needs to be posted:

A functional item should be aesthetically pleasing, simple as that. I got my current vehicle under that notion, and fashion-wise I go for the same philosophy: if it's not comfortable to wear, don't go for it. Then again, I find some odd things very comfortable, so that might throw some people off.

 

[Vegosiux]

Well, function, naturally. If it looks good doing what it's supposed to do, great, but first it needs to be good at doing what it's supposed to do.

 

[Agayek]

It depends. I tend to prefer function, but I am more than willing to disregard the utility/functionality of something if it looks really fucking cool.

Maybe I'm just weird, but I'm mostly apathetic to aesthetic, with no fucks given about pretty much any aesthetic at all, until it hits either end of the spectrum. I'll refuse to use/own/whatever something that is extremely ugly, and will buy/use/whatever something that looks extremely awesome, regardless of how much or little use they are, but as long as neither extreme is met, I don't really care.

For example, if I was presented with two tables to eat dinner at, one being a beautiful hand-carved oak table and a folding table someone pulled out of the garage and just wiped the dust off, I'll pick the one that's closest.

Alternatively, I semi-regularly buy cool-looking sword replicas (mostly from video games; Frostmourne is probably the most immediately recognizable amongst my collection) that I'm never going to use for anything but hanging on the wall just because I like the way they look.

 

[annoyinglizardvoice]

If it can't do its job, then it doesn't matter what to looks like.

 

[Something Amyss]

If I have to choose, function for most things. I am not against style, but I'd rather have something work well as opposed to look good.

 

[Conza]

There are some things that its function is to look good.

But when it has to do something, I'd rather it do it well/the best, than do it ok but look awesome.

 

[Kennetic]

Gotta go with function first and foremost. However, if you can put aesthetics with that same quality of function, then you are doing good.

 

[Compatriot Block]

In real life, function without a doubt.

In a video game? If something looks stupid, and there is another choice that looks great but sacrifices some small amount of power for it, chances are I'll go with option B until I hit a wall. Games with absurdly high difficulty are the one exception.

 

[Vigormortis]

This needs to be posted:

A functional item should be aesthetically pleasing, simple as that. I got my current vehicle under that notion, and fashion-wise I go for the same philosophy: if it's not comfortable to wear, don't go for it. Then again, I find some odd things very comfortable, so that might throw some people off.

My thoughts exactly. Why not both?

There's almost nothing as beautiful as something that's optimally functional AND aesthetically pleasing. Even the skill it takes to pull off such a feat is something to be admired.

In some cases something that is designed to be optimally functional can be, in appreciation of it's efficiency, as aesthetically pleasing as something that's specifically designed to appeal to the eye.

So really, the only reason to not have both is a lack of imagination and poor planning.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Function, ultimately, is more important. An object that is Aesthetically pleasing but unable to fulfill it's purpose is a useless thing. Aestetics enhance; only in art are they allowed to define

But function is not always as important as you might think. In the world of firearms, the 1911 is disproportionately represented in the United States in large part because of looks and cachet - aestetic considerations. People will lust over a 1911 because of aesthetics. By contrast, the glock is the ultimate example of function. Every line of the weapon has a purpose in being and the result is a dull black plastic brick that is utterly unremarkable to look at yet the weapon ultimately is incredibly effective at letting whomever holds it direct steel at whatever they desire destroyed. Few lust after the glock.

I suppose the take away is that function is rationally the important bit but aesthetics tickle that part of our psyche that doesn't have much need for logic.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Well.... depends really. For example, in Pokemon I'm really only going for aesthetics aside from trying to keep some kind of balance with the types I have, other than that though, I couldn't care less about competitive fighting or which pokemon will maximize my ability to be effective.

On the other hand, I also couldn't care less about what my car looks like, aside from the color, and just want efficiency and safety.

And on yet another hand, sometimes I want both. I love a shirt that's both comfortable and aesthetically pleasing to me.

 

[stormeris]

Always try to reach a compromise, maximum function without losing the aesthetic value and the other way around.

 

[spartan231490]

Anyone who says aesthetics is lying. It doesn't matter how pretty it is, if it doesn't do it's job it's completely worthless.

 

[rednose1]

It's easy to first say function, seems like the practical choice. But people don't walk around in drab, dull grey clothes every day. We don't seek out blocky, look-alike houses to live in. We want practicality, but seek out aesthetically pleasing things whenever possible. In the long run, Aesthetics wins, every time.


While some people will say simple/practical can be aesthetically pleasing (and certainly can!) it's just more proof that people value beauty more; they're looking for it in places/things it's not normally found.

 

[Caiphus]

Well, both are important. I would want function to be emphasised, I feel, but to a minimum level of aesthetics. And more of either is a benefit.

Example:
Apple laptops look rather good. They're slim, light and are almost fashion accessories. But they, especially gaming wise, don't match my current gaming laptop. So I would pick my current laptop because function over aesthetics, right? (And clearly, judging by Apple's revenue figures, a lot of people would disagree.) Same with my smartphone.

But would I have done that if my current laptop or smartphone was shaped like a giant pink penis? Well, probably not.

 

[TheIceQueen]

This is a very pointless dichotomy that's not at all very interesting to discuss. For that reason, I didn't even vote in the poll.