3 ms·
You responded to my comment about the timelessness of an aesthetic as somehow wrong because the underlying technology is not to your liking? No one is agreeing
by cptskippy 7y ago
You responded to my comment about the timelessness of an aesthetic as somehow wrong because the underlying technology is not to your liking?
No one is agreeing or disagreeing with what you're saying because no one understands where you're coming from. You've basically said "Green is stupid because we're still using cars!"
- JoeAltmaier 7y agoHey, I can speak for myself. No need to put words in my mouth. Thanks! Design aesthetic is different from 'stuff that doesn't work'. I'm reminded of design students that create something that looks like a bicycle out of cardboard layers, and say "See! I've improved the bicycle! It'll change the world!" And what they have is a useless sculpture of a bicycle. It's plain to most folks, using ordinary bathrooms in ordinary houses that the stuff is laughably awkward, dangerous and hard to clean. Try to explain it away all you like.
- cptskippy 7y ago> Design aesthetic is different from 'stuff that doesn't work' Again, we were speaking about durability and aesthetics, not functionality. Since you want to discuss functionality... > laughably awkward For example? Do you have any better real world alternatives. > dangerous What and how? > hard to clean Compared to? > Try to explain it away all you like. No one is trying to explain away anything. We're not talking about the same thing. You're interjecting your thoughts on functionality as if they're in opposition to our discussion about reliability and design. To put it another way, we're talking about reality and you're arguing hypothetical. It's like showing us how your air guitar is better than our actual guitars.