Functionality or Aesthetics?

[x1onexwo1fx]

In most situations, would you rather have something that can do more or something that looks better? Give specific examples.

[Chromefox]

Functionality. Ie: my wardrobe. Not aesthetically pleasing, but is comfortable, and covers the parts that need covering.

Exception: Crocs. I don't care how comfortable they are. You look like you've mugged a Dutch clown.

[Indoor Living]

This is a great poll. Functionality.

[recall reality]

Extremely broad question... but I guess functionality. Aesthetics are a luxury, and this is coming from an artist. Functionality just seems more... fundamental. I'd rather have a more economic car that worked better than something flashy, a used instrument that has a unique sound rather than gorgeous new equipment. I'd rather play a fun game with crappy graphics than the newest looking game.

Life's all about finding a balance between these two things. I've certainly been swayed by aesthetics, but when it comes down to it, there is only so much functionality I'd sacrifice.

The mindset of a poor college student.

[Outtathaway!]

Aesthetic.
Like in electronics? Music? Games?

[jay_klinkhammer]

Functionality.

Mario 64, Goldeneye, Super Mario Bros 3 > Any XBox 360 game or PS3 Game

[Hamlet]

Functionality is obviously going to win - in a product, functionality is always considered first, with aesthetics being a luxury.

That being said, if something is fugly I would want nothing to do with it.

[x1onexwo1fx]

Functionality is obviously going to win - in a product, functionality is always considered first, with aesthetics being a luxury.

That being said, if something is fugly I would want nothing to do with it.

i know, but the discussion is more interesting than the poll results, that's why i made the thread in the first place.

i don't think i ever ran into a situation where the product was "fugly." can you come up with an example? or better yet, find a picture!

[x1onexwo1fx]

Extremely broad question... but I guess functionality. Aesthetics are a luxury, and this is coming from an artist. Functionality just seems more... fundamental. I'd rather have a more economic car that worked better than something flashy, a used instrument that has a unique sound rather than gorgeous new equipment. I'd rather play a fun game with crappy graphics than the newest looking game.

Life's all about finding a balance between these two things. I've certainly been swayed by aesthetics, but when it comes down to it, there is only so much functionality I'd sacrifice.

The mindset of a poor college student.

sorry the question is so broad, but i really like this answer because it gives so many different examples, and i think that wouldn't have been possible if the question was any more specific. i particularly liked the economic car and the used instrument, i would've never thought of those.

the mindset of a poor college student, huh? i think it's a bit more universal than that. i mean, how many people can get away with buying things that only look good? very few, i would think. the antagonist of the film wall street comes to mind.

[x1onexwo1fx]

Functionality.

Mario 64, Goldeneye, Super Mario Bros 3 > Any XBox 360 game or PS3 Game

yes! i agree. except maybe the super mario bros 3 part, i don't remember playing that...

[x1onexwo1fx]

Functionality. Ie: my wardrobe. Not aesthetically pleasing, but is comfortable, and covers the parts that need covering.

Exception: Crocs. I don't care how comfortable they are. You look like you've mugged a Dutch clown.

i would've never thought of wardrobe as an example. very interesting. however, i think sometimes just a simple wardrobe can actually be very aesthetically appealing.

crocs are so ugly haha.

[x1onexwo1fx]

Aesthetic.
Like in electronics? Music? Games?

i can understand the other two, but how does music come into this?

[Bloodsucker II]

i know, but the discussion is more interesting than the poll results, that's why i made the thread in the first place.

i don't think i ever ran into a situation where the product was "fugly." can you come up with an example? or better yet, find a picture!

a dildo. I don't want to post a picture.

[x1onexwo1fx]

a dildo. I don't want to post a picture.

thanks for that, i'd really rather not see it.

[piglet]

Functionality.

Who needs something that doesn't it's job well over something that's looks good but does fuckall?

[recall reality]

sorry the question is so broad, but i really like this answer because it gives so many different examples, and i think that wouldn't have been possible if the question was any more specific. i particularly liked the economic car and the used instrument, i would've never thought of those.

the mindset of a poor college student, huh? i think it's a bit more universal than that. i mean, how many people can get away with buying things that only look good? very few, i would think. the antagonist of the film wall street comes to mind.

haha, well... it's certainly my mindset.

In most instances, specifically purchases... one just wouldn't sacrifice functionality. The question is whether or not it's worth it to shell out more for improved aesthetic value. Depends on the means and standards one is trying to keep, more about the image associated with a certain aesthetic.

People use this argument with Mac vs PC all the time.

[derekmoyer4]

if i do not find it aesthetically pleasing i will not get it. however, i never get something if it has terrible functionality.

[screamoutmyname]

Deeeefinitely functionality... Although I do enjoy aesthetics as well.

Such an interesting question... Good work!