greebles

[Atomic_Monkey]

My frustration isn't that people are disagreeing with me. It's that they're missing my point.

Let's say I posted side-by-side photos of an old fashioned shirt and a super modern shirt. And I pointed out that the newer shirt looks more futuristic because of the way it's constructed. The old shirt has obvious seams, showing that it's multiple pieces of fabric stitched together. The modern shirt has almost no visible seams, as though its single piece of fabric that was made in one go.

Based on the responses I've gotten so far, I guaranty some people would ignore the differences in the garments' construction.

Instead, they'd argue the newer shirt looks more modern simply because it's a more contemporary fashion style. Of course its up-to-date style would speak to its modernity, but that's not the only reason it would look newer. The construction of the shirt would be a major visual queue.

Or they'd argue the shirts look different because they were made for different purposes (one was made for the winter, while the other was made the summer). Perhaps their varying functionality does in some way date them, but that's not the only reason. The construction of the shirts would major visual queue.

The same is true for tech. The tech's shape, style and function may contribute to dating it. But the tech's construction is a major visual queue.

 

[Dukhat]

My frustration isn't that people are disagreeing with me. It's that they're missing my point.

If so many people are missing your point, then perhaps the problem isn't with us.

 

[David cgc]

Let's say I posted side-by-side photos of an old fashioned shirt and a super modern shirt. And I pointed out that the newer shirt looks more futuristic because of the way it's constructed. The old shirt has obvious seams, showing that it's multiple pieces of fabric stitched together. The modern shirt has almost no visible seams, as though its single piece of fabric that was made in one go.

The most high-tech clothing I can think of is elite athletic wear, especially for swimmers (they actually call them “tech suits”), made for maximum flexibility and minimum drag, and it actually is common for them to accentuate seam lines either directly or with contrasting-color panels.

I think you might need to test your theory a little more vigorously, rather than finding all these cherry-picked just-so examples to try and back up your preconceptions.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Let's put the engine of the Wright Flyer next to a typical jet engine manufactured in the 21st century and see which looks "less mechanical".

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

The ships on the right have less visible mechanical parts,

Yes, modern ships with a required stealth design goals has to minimize surface mounted equipment.
That's the nature of Stealth Vehicles.
Most vehicles & vessels have moved to hide all their mechanical parts underneath the body panels a long time ago.

less visible joins,

Modern manufacturing & paint can easily hide rivets and joint lines.

more unibody construction,

Actually, modern ships are made in modular parts.
Same with combat aircraft.
They're all joined together with incredible levels of precision.

Older vessels like the one you shown on the left have closer a unibody style construction where it was built from the keel up as a single piece.
So you have that completely backwards. Appearance & how it's actually made are different.

Some modern cars have unibody construction, but large vessels & aircraft that you shown are not done that way in modern times.

A modern Stealth Fighter like the F-35 has incredible level of tolerances between joints.
The F-35 Rear Fuselage has Build Tolerances of (7/10000)" = 0.0178 mm
That's according to BAE who helps assemble the F-35.
They use Microscopes to help level the aircraft to that level of precision, you couldn't feel the difference with your hand.
You need Electronic Microscopes to validate every gap.

That's how the F-35 achieves the superior level of stealth, the metrology behind their work is effectively world class in the aerospace industry.

and overall more simple aesthetics. If you can't concede these objective facts, then you're not having a serious discussion with me.

The aesthetics of combat vehicles & vessels are completely determined by operational requirements, technology of the day, & design doctrines; not just what you feel like for military hardware.

Consumer products are based on trends in design going on at the time.

Don't try to conflate correlation with causation.

Military design & aesthetics are a seperate thing.
Same with most large pieces of hardware like vehicles & vessels.

Consumer products are more likely to be the ones chasing design trends, regardless of if its good or bad, and if it looks futuristic or not with simpler shapes and less visible seems.