this is a really important 'issue' that Brian explores in his posting, there are design philosophies built around it, predominately the Modernists (capital M denoting the representation of a period arguably from the late 1800s to the 1960s)who generated the phrase which some of you have heard 'form follows function'. When you design around problems
and functionary aspects that have to be resolved, the resulting product should be of a 'pure' aesthetic ONLY in it's total reduction to function
without ancillary and unnecessary decorative 'baubles' (decorative lugwork perhaps?). There are stories of the fascist nature of 'High Modernists', and though F L Wright was antagonized by them, also insisted that he knew better of how a client should place their furniture despite the application. read T Wolfe's 'From Bauhaus to Our House' for a short entertaining read on this topic. Their claim of an universal aesthetic was subsequently questioned by the
postmodernists who asserted cultural and personal considerations to desig n.
I think that the Laser is visually beautiful and fascinating in the emphasis of aerodynamics beyond all the issues that Brian speaks to in his posting. It predated the time when they could physically pull it off. They deserve commendation for the attempt, and MOMA is full of attempts. The ivory tower of the museum is all about looking and has little to do with how something works ('do not touch'). There is quite a lot of discourse on the uselessness of this institution, specifically because it decontextualizes objects from 'real life' and relegates them to eye candy for an elite group of society.
I still wish that someone would give a report on their perception of how
it rides...gabriel
Dale mentioned that the look of
>
> the laser was the feature that was being recognized and "appreciated"
>
> by people at the time. My feeling is you people only see the visual
>
> way too much and overlook the basic elements of design and function in
>
> the process. I'm suggesting a more enlightened perspective as an
>
> alternative. If the piece passes the design and function part first,
>
> then look at the visual/perceived appearance for innovation and
>
> styling. Cinelli most definitely does not win the award for solving
>
> this problem.
>
--
gabriel l romeu
chesterfield nj usa
± http://studiofurniture.com Ø http://journalphoto.org ±