Re: [Leica] Aesthetics vs. Function

[Henning Wulff <henningw@archiphoto.com>]

At 12:35 PM -0500 3/19/01, Douglas Cooper wrote:
>On 3/19/01 3:01 AM, Leica Users digest expressed the following:
>
>>  Just how much
>>  esthetic design do you really think one can do on a lense?
>
>
>A fair bit, actually.  Again, look at the current crop of Voigtlanders, or
>the early Leica lenses:  the Summitar is lovely, as are most of the lenses
>produced around the time of the M3.  These really don't have to be competing
>goals:  function vs. beauty.  I trained in architecture, and nothing appalls
>me more than to see a building -- generally erected by a developer and
>engineer, without consulting a designer -- that is simply an unadorned box,
>in the name of "efficiency."  A box -- or a tubular lens -- is simply a lazy
>way of producing a product.

I don't agree; I find the design of the C/V lenses somewhat erractic 
and midling, as I do lenses like the Summitar. I like the look of the 
M4/6 better than the M3. I like the design of most current Leica 
lenses a lot better. I like...    So what? A box (not sure what lens 
you are referring to) or a tubular lens can be both aesthetically 
pleasing and a strong design.

>Again, let's look at the Jaguar XKE.  I'm not the only one to admire this:
>the MOMA has one as part of its permanent design collection.  What is
>interesting about the XKE on display, is that design documents (also on
>display) indicate that *the sole concern* in the design of that body was
>*function*.  All they took into account was aerodynamics, etc.  Not that I
>believe this for a minute, but still: the car is clearly designed without
>compromise in that area.

Aerodynamics was such an unknown at that time that they could say 
whatever, and probably it would still not apply. I agree, though, 
that it is a very good looking car. Not necessarily my favourite, but 
definitely one of the better ones. This has little to do with Leicas, 
though. Aerodynamics probably didn't come into the design equation 
much at all.

>Leica could easily do the same.  Of contemporary
>camera design, the Arca Swiss stands out as a work of art, as does the
>Canham DLC; nothing in the 35mm area immmediately comes to mind.

I like the Arcas, but I'm partial to the Sinars myself; I don't like 
the Canham enough to single it out. There are a number of field 
cameras I like better. I like the Alpa MF, Hasselblad SWC, Plaubel 
Makina, and in a strange way, the Koni-Omegas. I like the Leica C11 
and Ricoh GR-1.

>The
>current Rollei TLR is gaudy (but the earlier versions were, almost
>uniformly, things of beauty -- and function).  Ah, come to think of it:  the
>Canon Elph.  Gorgeous product.  Admittedly, not a very good camera, but that
>is not a fault of the casing.  And some of the Sony digital stuff looks
>pretty nice.

A lot of it looks rather baroque and clumsy, while some is very good. 
They just produce a lot of different models and have a very high 
replacement cycle.

>  Leica has simply become lazy, and complacent in the face of
>mediocrity.  And it's sad.

I disagree completely - I think Leica's designs are some of the 
better ones in the camera industry.

In the end, a lot of these likes and dislikes depend on fashion and 
aesthetics that are based on cultural heritage and its development. I 
emphatically feel that there are no absolutes in design aesthetics, 
except those of a given time, culture and species. So feel free to 
like what you like and I'll like what I like, but a third party 
should not be bound by either.

>Douglas Cooper
>http://www.dysmedia.com
>


- -- 
    *            Henning J. Wulff
   /|\      Wulff Photography & Design
  /###\   mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com
  |[ ]|     http://www.archiphoto.com