Raquin knives

[spaceconvoy]

+1. As we know from other fields, the simplest design can be the most difficult and unforgiving to execute.

As a designer, this argument pops up regularly and bugs me every time. No, not really. The more complex a design, the more difficult to execute - that's basic logic. But complexity distracts most people and skews their evaluation, especially laypeople with less appreciation for nuance. They look past errors that would be glaringly obvious in a simpler design. Complexity is always more difficult, and there's nothing counterintuitive at work here.

 

[josemartinlopez]

Think you need to talk specifics, and I was speaking broadly including non-creative fields like types of engineering. Or maybe I mean deceptively simple (but quite complex underneath) can be very difficult to execute well.

 

[spaceconvoy]

Let's see if I have this straight... I need to be more specific but you're speaking broadly. You're expanding the scope of your original argument to find a place where it works. And you're not really sure what you're talking about. Ok, got it

 

[iimi]

Why change **** that's already perfect

 

[ian]

As a designer, this argument pops up regularly and bugs me every time. No, not really. The more complex a design, the more difficult to execute - that's basic logic. But complexity distracts most people and skews their evaluation, especially laypeople with less appreciation for nuance. They look past errors that would be glaringly obvious in a simpler design. Complexity is always more difficult, and there's nothing counterintuitive at work here.

Think you need to talk specifics, and I was speaking broadly including non-creative fields like types of engineering. Or maybe I mean deceptively simple (but quite complex underneath) can be very difficult to execute well.

Ok, let’s calm down. Obviously both simple and complex can be hard to execute depending on the situation.

I was a violinist in a past life, and my quartet and I would always talk about how Mozart quartets were ‘hard’, in spite of being much simpler than more modern pieces. The difficulty is that everything you do is totally exposed and immediately obvious to the audience. With something like Shostakovich, the audience isn’t always as familiar with the structure of the piece, or with the types of harmony he uses, and there’s often much more going on at once so it’s much easier to hide errors. Similarly, at the end of Beethoven’s 9th symphony there’s all this hard, fast craziness in the first violin part, but it’s partially hidden by the wall of sound the rest of the orchestra is creating, so a missed note here and there won’t matter as much.

 

[ian]

But complexity distracts most people and skews their evaluation, especially laypeople with less appreciation for nuance. They look past errors that would be glaringly obvious in a simpler design.

Although reading your post again, you basically made the same point I did. So, why is it so upsetting to you? Yes, executing a complex thing perfectly may be harder that executing a simple thing perfectly. But no execution is ever perfect, and we’re always working within the tolerances allowed by the buyer/listerer/etc... Of course, I don’t know your field, so maybe this is less applicable to you than it is generally.

 

[Corradobrit1]

Although reading your post again, you basically made the same point I did. So, why is it so upsetting to you? Yes, executing a complex thing perfectly may be harder that executing a simple thing perfectly. But no execution is ever perfect, and we’re always working within the tolerances allowed by the buyer/listerer/etc... Of course, I don’t know your field, so maybe this is less applicable to you than it is generally.

Well given his username, if he's building space vehicles and rockets I wouldn't want a 'good enough' approach.

 

[ian]

Well given his username, if he's building space vehicles and rockets I wouldn't want a 'good enough' approach.

heh, fair enough. although I thought the topic here was fancy knives...

i imagine even rocket designers operate according to ‘good enough’, though. Their tolerances are probably just tighter than those used by string quarters.

 

[spaceconvoy]

If you're actually curious, I'm an industrial design engineer. There's a fair amount of tolerance allowed in my work, with some hard limits - like fitting inside the product box, and doing everything the electrical engineers demand (lol ). I don't have any issue with the way you've phrased it because we agree - complexity makes it easier to hide errors. But if you re-read the original iteration it's pretty obnoxious.

+1. As we know from other fields, the simplest design can be the most difficult and unforgiving to execute.

What fields exactly, and how do "we" know how difficult something is to execute if we don't work in them? If JML is secretly a renaissance man with a broad life experience, I'll retract everything. But it strikes me as the typical know-it-all-layman point of view.

Like people who say the Cybertruck is simple and dumb. It's ugly, for sure, which is an opinion anyone is qualified to make. But after a certain number of bar conversations with mansplaining braggarts, it gets under your skin when people claim they can know how difficult something was to execute just by looking at it.

And they all seem to agree on this conventional wisdom - 'simplicity is more difficult' No, it's really not. They just don't have the ability to perceive more than 4-5 design elements at once.

 

[juice]

Like people who say the Cybertruck is simple and dumb. It's ugly, for sure, which is an opinion anyone is qualified to make. But after a certain number of bar conversations with mansplaining braggarts, it gets under your skin when people claim they can know how difficult something was to execute just by looking at it.

That's probably also because of the Elon factor, because he's frequently such an arse. Doesn't mean he's wrong in that instance, of course, but it's an underlying condition.

 

[M1k3]

Where's the cyberknives? Are is this a cyberderailing?

 

[DitmasPork]

+1. As we know from other fields, the simplest design can be the most difficult and unforgiving to execute.

Who do you mean by 'we'? Elaborate on your point.

 

[McMan]

He's using the "Royal We"...

 

[ian]

I was reading this bread book by Jeffrey Hamelman and something made me think of all you wonderful people.

 

[F-Flash]

Anyone has insight how birgersson and Yannick compare to Raquins?

 

[DitmasPork]

A blade forward beast.

 

[panda]

I am really liking raquin based on that he sticks to what he knows to be good and not try to appease the fruity fancy handle anti-wabi sabi crowd. I want to try one of his knives now.

 

[aporigine]

the fruity fancy handle anti-wabi sabi crowd.

I rather prefer to think of as the fecund well-hanged regularity-celebrating contingent.

Mind you, Frank Lloyd Wright, that doyen of crisp delineations, is not one of my cultural heroes. He had no vision of those of us who can stack a two-car garage from floor to ceiling in Precious Crap or worthier possessions.

Giving studly crap up for art does not serve art.