Design Aesthetics

A picture in "AOPA Pilot" magazine reminded me of a subject I last wrote about in 1971...in an essay on college admissions applications. In that essay I remarked on the fact that ships (I might as well have said airplanes, cars, or any number of devices with a definite transportation or other practical function) are also aesthetically pleasing -- or that they should be.

In the current AOPA Pilot is an article on the diamond DA 42 NG, a small twin with diesel engines. The picture on the cover of the magazine shows probably the ugliest nacelles installed on an airplane since before World War II. That got me thinking about why I thought they were so ugly, and I came to the conclusion that aesthetics aren't transcendent: they must be appropriate rather than beautiful in any grandiose way. The blunt, blocky nacelles on the DA 42 are annoying to the eye because the rest of the airplane has a graceful, almost exaggerated aero look, betraying its glider ancestry and the efficient aerodynamics that go along with it. To have such bluff nacelles coexisting with that kind of fuselage (composite, with compound curvature and a high aspect wing with winglets) just isn't appropriate (see photo 1, from AOPA's Web site).

More everyday examples abound. While some people disapprove of sport-utility vehicles (SUV's) on principle, I take a balanced view: they are designed for hauling big loads over surfaces that might not be as "improved" as most US roads. That being so, why do some of the manufacturers try to make them look aerodynamic (and in the process, reduce the internal volume that makes them useful for their intended function) as well as reduce outward visibility? While I'm not an extreme partisan that form must follow function, I think form must be appropriate to the function. A shape like this (Photo 2) doesn't "say" it can take 6 people and hundreds of pounds of cargo over miles of dirt roads. A shape like this (Photo 3) does!

It's the same in ships and airplanes (and probably lots of other devices I'm not as familiar with.) Aesthetics is everywhere because we're human -- something I was exposed to early on in my education when I found that in the ancient world, utilitarian devices like weapons, armor, clothes, pottery, buildings, and shoes were often decorated with not only patterns but also artwork that is considered almost like fine art today. In ships and airplanes, though, it's usually the overall shape and layout that makes or breaks the aesthetics. A DC-3 (photo 4) looks exactly like what it is -- a sky bus. Most pilots like the way it looks because its aesthetics are appropriate to its function. A Constellation, on the other hand, goes aeons beyond what it is and is graceful and elegant, too. I like its design even more.

In ships, a World War II destroyer is fast and looks it. A battleship dominates the environment with its big guns and you can tell that by looking at it, too. Today's ships? Boxes to enclose their "payloads" -- not aesthetic at all.

Aesthetics are everywhere. Too bad so much of it is "bad" (inappropriate) aesthetics!