I have never liked faux home building materials -- linoleum tiles made to look sort of like stone, Countertops with granite prints, and wood-patterned vinyl win

I have never liked faux home building materials -- linoleum tiles made to look sort of like stone, Countertops with granite prints, and wood-patterned vinyl windows. There's just something dishonest about them that makes them aesthetically unappealing. I'm missing a leg, and I don't think I would want a cosmesis (a shell that looks skin-like) for the same reasons. It's much less creepy to have, in my case, a black carbon fiber socket than a sorta skin-like covering. It's not trying to be something that it's not. Perhaps I'd feel different if I was missing an arm, but the quotes from the article implied similar feelings. What interests me is what designs might emerge if the implicit requirement that a prosthetic foot look like a real foot was removed. Would it be better to have a carbon fiber heel stick out way behind where my real heel should be? Would this allow for a more efficient (note that I didn't say "natural") gait? What if the spring extended outward and up like an elf's foot? The only devices for which these rules have been relaxed are feet worn by amputee athletes (mostly runners). I suppose these rules are in place mostly due to economics; the same foot designs must be used by both those who care about looking like a normal person and those who don't. So, designers work in the space provided by the union of all restrictions.