"Peter Lynch" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 16:07:26 +0100, Mary Fisher wrote:

"Stuart Noble" wrote in message
...


I think maybe you're on thin ice with aesthetics. When something is
obviously beneficial to society, we tend to accept it visually.
Telegraph
poles, electricity pylons etc.

I agree. Most of the technology we see around us is not aesthetically
pleasing, there are very few beautiful cars, commercial vans and lorries
and
the like are ugly. Even most houses aren't pretty. Nor are the people who
live in them ... Attempts to make washing machines beautiful by having
rounded corners doesn't really cut the mustard. One wouldn't put up a
mobile
phone mast just to adorn one's plot.

All those things are in full view of people almost all the time. Solar
water
heating panels are usually on the roof, they are more of less part of the
roof. They look like Velux windows - if you bother to look upwards and
most
people don't. If you do look upwards you'll see some of the ugliest
creations of Man - civil aircraft.

This just goes to show how invisible technology becomes. When you
talked about looking up I was certain you were going to refer to
TV aerials.

There are too many uglinesses to choose from but aircraft are doubly ugly
because of their noise. Triply because of their pollution but that's another
story.

The thing is, it is perfectly possible to make household appliances
look pretty,

How?

but people aren't prepared to pay. When it comes to the
crunch, most people don't mind what their hoovers/cars/houses look
like provided next-door's looks the same.

Our house and its appliances aren't pretty but they're not the same as the
neighbours'. They were decades ago .. :-)

Mary

Pete

--
.................................................. ........................
. never trust a man who, when left alone ...... Pete Lynch .
. in a room with a tea cosy ...... Marlow, England .
. doesn't try it on (Billy Connolly) .....................................