Why are modern arms so ugly?

Dear Halcro, You and Dertonarm are our 'fire -eaters' or
'war -horses'. Never heard about fear? I mentioned somewhere that among the most contra-productive rules the oldest was 'de gustibus... non disputandum est'. However
even Mozart needed to learn first about music before he was
able to give his compositions to the humanity. This apply to any artist we admire. But if you look at our educational systems you will see that even 'phylosophical esthetics' is missing. What can one learn about esthetics with the help of TV? So no wonder that only few really care about while many like to talk about...
You may be privileged by your profession in this matters
the most of us have no better than state that we 'like' or admire something but are not able to describe what we exactly mean. The lack of vocabulary suggest the lack of learning.
BTW I stated ealier that I admire FR-64 S the most of all tonearms. But because of my lack of the right vocabulary I had no better description than 'mechanical beauty'. I was very glad to hear from T_bone that he understod what I wanted to say.
Regards,

I remember the old Zentih Cobra looked pretty nice. I would never let any of my LPs anywhere near one though. I leave that to an arm that is unperturbed by any track recorded in vinyl.

Perception is a funny thing and it is long proven that there is no accounting for taste. I find the Laverda motorbikes from the 1970s to be quite tasteful in design, despite the fact that they are also appear quite technical (http://www.motorcyclespecs.co.za/model/laverda/laverda_750sf2.htm)... It has never struck me that someone would have thought that the Triplanar or Phantom to be ugly! To me they look awesome, totally speaking to the requirements of LP. They say that one has as much fun planning and anticipating a vacation; I suspect that tone arms get some of their appeal simply because they present the possibility of music.

FWIW, as someone who considers himself to be sensitive to the difference between good and bad examples of industrial design, I totally agree with Ralph about the Triplanar and the Phantom. To me they create an instant visual impression of finely crafted scientific instruments, which is entirely consistent with their intended purpose.

Although I can understand the visual appeal of the Continuum designs, personally I would not want to have a tonearm that reminded me of snakes every time I looked at it :-)

BTW, as I was composing this post I showed pictures of all of these arms, and also the Talea, to my wife, who is an artist among other things, and who comes from a family that includes several architects. She wouldn't characterize any of them as ugly, just as representing different design concepts.

09-23-11: Halcro
But the great tonearms of the Golden Age are genuinely beautiful in the way that most Ferraris are generally agreed to be beautiful

To put my comments in perspective, I'll add that I do consider the Ferrari 308 to be the most beautiful car ever designed.

Regards,
-- Al

I just meant that its performance came first; if you get that then apparence is secondary. But you are right that many buy on looks; I have no trouble with the apparence of a lot of modern arms. I have a Graham 2.2 and a Jelco 750 and both are good looking to me. The Wilson Benich carbon arm looks great and is suppose to preform well, I thought about buying one recently but didn't really need it. I have had more arms than most, going back to ones like the ADC Prichard wood arm and the Pickering unipivot, which sat on what looked like a darning needle. There have always been good looking ones and bad looking ones; we just tend to remember the classics and forget the dogs. Something like remembering the origonal T Bird and forgetting the Edsel.

The two Cobras, sure is not my idea of beauty either.[http://www.plan59.com/av/av508.htm]