Why are modern arms so ugly?


OK.......you're going to say it's subjective and you really looove the look of modern tonearms?
But the great tonearms of the Golden Age are genuinely beautiful in the way that most Ferraris are generally agreed to be beautiful.
Look at the Fidelity Research FR-64s and FR-66s? Look at the SAEC 308 series and the SAEC 407/23? Look at the Micro Seiki MA-505? Even the still audacious Dynavector DV-505/507?
But as an architect who's lifetime has revolved around aesthetics.......I am genuinely offended by the design of most modern arms. And don't give me the old chestnut....'Form follows Function' as a rational for ugliness. These current 'monsters' will never become 'Classics' no matter how many 'rave reviews' they might temporarily assemble.
128x128halcro
Does anybody regard the Breuer or Brinkmann or Raven as beautifully designed tonearms? They look very simple (lookings only of course), a bit Bauhaus design like.

best @ fun only
Well the Breuer and Brinkmann are not modern arms....but I don't find them particularly elegant.
The Raven pushes no boundaries and is rather pedestrian looking.
I much prefer the looks of the Shroeder arms in terms of their proportions and clarity of purpose.
Of the modern arms, some of the 12" upper Reed models are not so bad.
Happy Nandric? :^)
Dear Halcro, Thuchan is already making my life difficult
with even threefold teasing in a single post. You obviously like to join him. Vidmantas , the designer/owner of the Reed, is a good friend of my but this is not, uh,
a sufficient condition to admire his tonearms in aesthetical sense. To be honest my position is that an tonearm needs to satisfy some other conditions first. As I
stated before I never thought about tonearms in aesthetical
context. But the FR-64S awaked in me this 'wondering' which
I called, by lack of the right vocabulary, 'mechanical beauty'. Now the lack of vocabulary in this whole thread is an obvious indication that the most of us are not 'aestheticaly educated'. No wonder than that we use 'old predicates' or expressions to describe the 'new objects of art'. To me this paradox is obvious. Ie 'old'
and 'new' are (pre) supposed to be different. But you obviously enjoy this 'field' of knowledge because you must feel in this domain like a king. You should however not extend this feeling to the domain of turntables and carts. There are boundaries , you know, even for the architects.

Regards,
I also like the 12" Reed 3Q but I prefer the Centroid's form. Aesthetically it seems more in purpose and less fancy. It can manage to hide some of it's revelations in a seemingly plain design. These days I have the Pluto 9A/Decca REF and SAEC WE-308SX/Condor XCM with the Zonotone Z-SHELL 10 headshell. These two pairs are better integrated in my system than Pluto 9A/Colibri XPP and Reed/Goldfinger in the past. I'm more on the MC side but I can not accept the missing of azimuth adjustability on SAEC. This is a serious issue with vintage arms and one reason that I'm missing the Reed. It's control of azimuth is on a par with Pluto (at the headshell). A really great arm but after living with the Reed I can say it is not my favorite nor in terms of use or at sight, neither on the sound matching with my set-up. I've get over this arm really quick. So far only the Pluto has passed the test of time after 15 years in use. What are you guys doing to overcome the azimuth issue?