Industrial design.

[FourTonMantis]

For those of you who like to draw mechs and suchlike machinery, do you pay attention to how the machine will work together, do you draw components based on aesthetic value, or both? I don't mean for like technical blueprints; solely for fictional concept art purposes.

For me it would be aesthetic value, as I'm not very machine-savvy.

[Zirngibism]

I chose functionality.

Assuming "form follows function", then a machine with a very creative function will generally have a likewise interesting form. (Unless you go the Rube Goldberg route with crazy form following a dull function but that's not all that serious).

I think the view you take of a shape has a lot to do with its aesthetics as well (unless you're designing something that's going to be seen from all angles). But if it's a still illustration it's a lot easier to change forom than function so personally I think it's best to start with function.

Good question by the way.

[Farvus]

Hard choice. I think I would go for functionality. Usually when I try to follow it, some interesting aesthetic comes out. Later it's just matter of refining it.

[Ilaekae]

Functionality is the master. Aesthetics follows only as an afterthought, and these aesthetics are often determined by such mundane factors as ease of maintenance, access, environmental protection, and mobility (non-snagging, etc.).

Treat mechs as you would art, engineering and architecture or any other human construct. Without a firm foundation that makes sense within the laws of physics, you have pretty scrap.

[sicko]

For those of you who like to draw mechs and suchlike machinery, do you pay attention to how the machine will work together, do you draw components based on aesthetic value, or both? I don't mean for like technical blueprints; solely foR fictional concept art purposes.

For me it would be aesthetic value, as I'm not very machine-savvy.


The best designs can be strictly aesthetic. functionality is a very limiting factor. let science catch up with your ideas and let engineers work out the details.

just wanted to get the opposing view point out there.

it really depends what you are working toward. If you are working with minds that are as whimsical as say Dali or Dr. Seuss, then function is out the window and the laws of science don't apply. Aeon Flux comes to mind.

that beings said, function should always be kept in mind to some extent. Some of the most beautiful industrial designs are those of raw mechanics doing nothing more than functioning.

[FLenG]

It changes with seasons or years I guess, back in late 90s everyone was trying to emulate Phillips's organic approach. Theres also the Phillipe Starks of the design industry, they make stuff that looks good, unique, but some of them are not quite functional, aesthetically cool looking tho (e.g Starks orange squeezer).

Recently the year 2000s, electronic peripherals are going back to the "machined" look with more touch of simplicity and elegance and also a very "functional" look to the product.

I'd personally like that approach, I hate electronic product that looks like a piece of mush up pillows or some sort of vegetable.

[lhumphries]

i am an industrial designer. My philosophy is function follows form. If i draw a sweet shape I come up with its use from that. Also for mechs and stuff its better to draw to components. Makes it more interesting.