9 ms·

I think it's bad aesthetics. There must be ways to make bills similarly difficult to counterfeit while still having designs that don't look like they were desig

• thwarted 17y ago
  It's unfortunate that things can not be appreciated solely for their functional utility and that everything gets judged on its visual impression and that visual impression is valued so highly that every other aspect takes a back seat; do we really stare at our currency for so long that we are offended by its "bad aesthetics"? People are increasingly using cash less frequently thanks to the ease of ETF and credit for small transactions. One of the goals of cash is to be easily and quickly identifiable and the different monetary values to be distinct. If you have enough time to seriously appreciate the look of your currency, it's not currency. Is anyone going to say "Sorry, I'm not going to accept your $20 bill because it's ugly"? Get real. I think calling the work that engravers do the result of a committee of blind bureaucrats does a disservice to the work and artistic effort that goes into designing cash. There's also a reason not to make cash valuable for reasons other than the monetary value it is meant to represent, bad "aesthetics" is perhaps one way to do this. Turing cash into works of high art may end up making the value of the paper greater than the monetary value.