New yacht designs; stomach churners?

I don't grasp those who feel they can define class or beauty or form or grace. Seems to me that we each have an equal right to determine what we like and feel is beautiful, whether poor or wealthy. One should be able to build what they want without mockery by others. It's fine to say one doesn't like it but to say they have no class is insulting.

AMG, who I respect a great deal, calls them "bad designs." Well, they're not bad simply because he or I don't like them. If somehow the boat fails to be able to do it's job, then that's a problem. But being aesthetically displeasing to some of us doesn't not make it a bad design. There are certainly those who love his designs but others who look at them and just don't like them.

I laugh too because we attack unique designs and variations from those we're accustomed too, but one of the complaints I hear every day is about dated designs and boats that look the same as 10 or 20 years ago. I'm glad there are so many different people who go in opposite directions.

As to the exterior of a boat, I really look to the utility more than the aesthetics. I'd prefer to own something I thought was beautiful, but ultimately I will own a boat that the exterior appearance isn't that appealing to me if it gets me the boat I really like. We owned a Sunseeker Manhattan 65 and that styling didn't appeal greatly to us, but the utility, performance, ride, and interior appearance and layout sure did.

Captholli and Bayoubud make some good points on the inside looking out. Yes, we use a boat from being onboard, not by looking at it from the outside, and I think one might board some of these boats we're quick to criticize and be amazed how well it works.

Once again well said olderboater.

I could write a book about bad designs, but here we were discussing just what we see on pictures of boats, and I still think a lot of them are not only bad, they are "non-designs" as John Bannenberg called them. And still he was aware that a lot of people did not like what he was doing. There is an old saying that 80 percent of almost anything are bad and 20 good, in a broad sense. When it comes to design, you can add that we like 50/50 of the 20 percent good designs, you and I can have different taste, so we are now down to 10 percent that are both good designs in a general meaning and that you and/or I like... This is pretty relevant to many things when you think about it, houses, cars, watches, clothing and so forth...

But what gives Bannenberg the right to determine what is good and bad? It seems to be that if they work for the intended use and please the buyer, then that's good. It's much like I look at other things. I don't judge other's taste in houses, cars, watches, clothing and most in art or music. In fact, art and music are forms of communication and if it communicates to it's target audience then it succeeds. Rap isn't music I generally enjoy and definitely not music I perform, but it reaches huge numbers of people that other music doesn't. I just don't think any person gets to decide what designs are good. What designs they find pleasing personally, they can decide.

Some of the most successful automobiles ever have been labelled ugly and widely panned. The Volkswagon Beetle always comes to mind. Then more recently PT Cruiser at a time when Chrysler needed a hit to stay alive. I look at the styles of homes just in different countries or even different parts of one country.

To me a bad design is one that is built as a spec item and doesn't sell, one that fails to achieve it's intended purpose, or one the buyer doesn't like. We sell a lot of different products and many are not my taste at all. That doesn't make them bad though. If they sit on the floor or on a shelf and never sell, then they're bad. Look at some of the dresses worn to the Academy Awards. I've seen many that I couldn't imagine why anyone would want them but if the one wearing it was happy with it, then so be it. I don't eat caviar, think it tastes awful but I knot people who gladly pay the outrageous prices for the most expensive caviar and love it.

We're calling boats bad designs in this thread and I just don't see on what basis. It's not bad because one or more of us dislike how it looks.

Education and experience as a starter, but you are on a different ball game where McDonalds win since it sells better than Paul Bocuse...

Chances are the two designs we talking about are spectacular inside, 56m looks better every time I look at it. Dock aesthetics are the first impression. Good that all boats don't look alike....we wouldn't have anything to talk about.

Those of us in the engineering and deign field work in a critical environment, there is a lot of pass / fail go / no go critique on most everything we produce. It comes with the territory and is part of the design spiral evolution. I think we develop thicker skin but do tend to have a critical eye.

It’s not about judgement, who has whatever “right” or feelings. Moving acceptance criteria just fits a narrative, usually ones own or a predisposition to a philosophy.

There are certainly designs that are pleasing to the eye and certainly some that are stomach churners on many levels. It’s not that hard to admit to acknowledge a design that is harmonious as opposed to one that is in conflict, regardless of who bought the only one in existence or a multitude of production units.

“It’s all good” is the anchor of mediocrity.