Why are modern arms so ugly?

Form should follow design if function is the core.
The better tonearms (some not all...) of yesterday (make this "yesterday" 2-3 decades +) were designed by engineers.
Most of todays components in top flight audio is designed by dedicated audiophiles who evolved from customer to professional designer.
And there is nothing wrong about that.
But we see in many tonearms individual concepts of design which does not follow function but personal aesthetics.
This may appeal to some, but in most cases it is not form-follows-function in the original sense of the phrase.
But then - as mentioned before by others - "beauty" ( in industrial, mechanical designs ) is always and only in the eye of the beholder and rarely, if ever, finds universal praise.
The infamous WAF was no issue in tonearm design in the 1970s/80s.
Most of them were pretty raw industrial designs with little to no optical gimmick.
Hard to sell today.
Our society has changed.
The outlook is very important today.
Thus make-up and posing are more important to underline any given USP.

Dear Tobes, the Dynavector is the Lamborgini Countach in tonearm design. You'll find both in the museum of modern art. For good reason.

Dear Daniel,
What's your opinion of the sound of the Dynavector compared to other arms?

i only have one real opinion regarding tone arm design- that it is easy to hold and place over the record, and clamps securely when not in use. i am too CLUMSY to be trusted with anything else...

Dear Halcro, some great design features ( I am especially taken by the in-build eddy current brake ). I was however never really taken by either incarnation's sonics. Always lacking the last bit of "air", inner detail and low end "blackness" and punch.