Functional Aesthetic

Detail, pattern, an abundance of design and lines in art, on clothing. It is not necessarily superfluous/ornamental/decorative. I used to think it was. I dressed in solid colors only, black and white only. Now I realize pattern/detail is just different from the minimalist Western perspective. More design does not mean arbitrary meaning. Its purpose is to add emotion. Also, minimalist design isn’t more “true” than the opposite. Think, a lamppost that is sleek and clean looking is just as thought out as a lamppost with swirls and embellishment. A truly “true” and un-ornamental lamppost would just be wires. It would not be minimalist/sleek, it would be bare. Minimalist lamp post designs and more detailed designs are both just different interpretations of beauty. Both were deliberately and labor-intensively thought out. Neither is more “true” because both conceal the wires with an unnatural, more-than-functional design. 

I had this thought walking to my dorm from Dodd. I too thought bout why nature is so universally beautiful. It is all functional, every design has a purpose AND the design is often sleek, it is often beautifully complex and detailed. Functional Aesthetic = Universal Beauty? Or Purer Beauty?

The flawed superiority of minimalism, and its incorrectly declared purity, its acceptance by most of the art world as the supreme way enriches my earlier reflections. I know saying enriches is vague, but I’m pretty tired right now and don’t want to reread what I just wrote and come up with an answer to how this is so. I am actually not even sure if this post is coherent, if it has reached a conclusion, or makes any sense. But my eyes hurt, so good bye for now. 

Leave a Reply

Powered by

Up ↑