Trans RINA, Vol 154, Part C1, Intl J Marine Design, Jan - Jun 2012


Those functions that are known, i.e. the sea technology are portrayed well, including safety and powerful size, yet machine features are ‘flimsy’ and stability looks ‘top heavy’. Those functions that are culturally new in the Oasis, arrive literature,


with the passenger garden. from marketing rather than through the more valuable,


theatrical and real-time experience of actual gigantic scale. The hermetically sealed interiors open up to the interior’s magical


The safe haven and


community scale, that is connected to the sea keeping frame here and in clever use of design layout, could create a special life-scaled experience.


4. SUMMARY


Multifunctional or complex technology can more easily lead to disharmonious forms and thus be perceived as ugly or indeterminate. In the case of the cruise ship it can be considered that a visual search for recreation and leisure, within the primary function of sea-going, which can distract and thus undervalue, in our minds, from its proper function.


Multiple-functioning products can become indeterminate through optimisation that is equally moderate. The unification and accentuation of the most valued and significant appearance.


function Thus


of a some products


technology can improve and


or philosophical interpretation of aesthetic appreciation.


Instead of having to `climb of a mountain knowledge' [14]


many pieces of Art and provenance, that might be `codified'


to understand and appreciate the function, as with [3], every


day products are able to


transparently lead the end user to the beauty of function. This makes everyday products, tools and apparatus fitting to the reduction made in the functional beauty approach. Ship design too is a place for contemplation of functional beauty. Especially in the exterior and gestalt, and although the concise definition of beauty can be more commercially viable in creating the connection between the indoor living and outdoor space, it is beneficial in a collective appreciation for attracting the mass market and improving exterior appearances.


5. CONCLUSION


The reason that it is harder to design a beautiful cruise liner than it is to design a beautiful work vessel is that the mix of functions unification of


in the the geometries difficult.


passenger craft makes a Indeterminate


forms do not promote value or worth and the collective audience can be discouraged by the appearance.


Appreciating disparate elements or concepts under a philosophy such as functional beauty is simple. It may be difficult to understand how the parameters of this philosophy, however, quantifies a quality of beauty but it


[9]


especially those complex systems of design, can benefit more than others from a universal


experiences, objectified


is believed that there are persuasive reasons why this is indeed the case.


Building a knowledge base to interpret the subjective, cultural, reflective and objective social meaning, the appreciator or creator defines those elements of geometry that are significant, harmonious in purpose - and that can be logically and systematically categorised as universally significant. This measured approach can also recycle, reduce and reuse categories to enrich a process


of


appreciation, which is a skill that may need to be taught to the naval architect. There is thus a need for further research in the application of


functional beauty to


practical ship design. 6.


REFERENCES


[1] G. Parsons and A. Carlson, Functional Beauty, Oxford University Press, USA, 2008.


[2] Y. Liu, “The aesthetic and the ethic dimensions of human factors and design”, Ergonomics, 46, (13-14), 1293-305, 2010.


[3] M. Csikszentmihalyi and R. E. Robinson, The Art of Seeing. Getty Center for Education in the Arts, 1990.


[4] P. M. A. Desmet and P. Hekkert, “Special Issue Editorial: Design & Emotion What Inspired the Interest in


User,” International Journal of Design, 3, (2), 1-6, 2009.


[5] S. Rock, Irvin and Palmer, “The Legacy of Gestalt Psychology.” Scientific American, 48-61.


[6] D. D. Hoffman and M. Singh, “Salience of visual parts”, Cognition, 63, (1), 29-78, Apr. 1997.


[7] H. Leder, B. Belke, A. Oeberst, and D. Augustin, “A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments.,” British Journal of Psychology, 95, (4), 489-508, Nov. 2004.


[8] E. Talen, “Sense of Community and


Neighbourhood Form: An Assessment of the Social Doctrine,” Urban Studies, 1999.


P. Hekkert, D. Snelders, and P. C. W. van Wieringen, “‘Most advanced, yet acceptable’: typicality and novelty as joint predictors of aesthetic preference in industrial design”, British Journal of Psychology, 94, (1), 111-24, Feb. 2003.


[10] G. C. and L. J. Cupchik, Emerging visions of the aesthetic process: Psychology, semiology, and philosophy. Cambridge Univ Pr, 1992.


©2012: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects


C-41


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64