I agree that the most beautiful design is pointless if it’s functionality is poor. Heck, I used ThinkPad laptops for over a decade and many regarded them as ugly, but I regarded them as beautiful because they were well engineered.
But if I’m understanding the video correctly, it’s going a step further than form should follow function and saying that ornamentation above and beyond function falls short of these principles for good design. I get that that’s true in minimalist design, and clearly Rams makes beautiful minimalist designs. I just don’t see that these principles can be taken as universal. For example, I’m typing this sitting at a nineteenth century replica of a Louis XV desk that I spent three months restoring. It’s entire aesthetic is a work of art, but in no way does it implement the “as little design and possible” philosophy.
Or just have something to use that’s easy on the eye of the beholder. It doesn’t need to be about status. My best antiques are in my home office, and the only people allowed in here are me, my cats and my wife if she needs to get something from it (she has her own office and for both of us they serve as our private space).
