26 Apr Form, Function, and Feelings Redefining Beauty in Design
The concept of “ugly design” is a fascinating paradox in our aesthetically-driven world. What makes something ugly? And more importantly, why do some “ugly” designs become wildly successful? In our latest iDesign Lab podcast episode, we explored this counterintuitive phenomenon that permeates various aspects of our daily lives, often without us even realizing it.
Perhaps the most iconic example of commercially successful ugly design is Crocs. These rubber clogs, widely mocked for their appearance, have built a billion-dollar empire. Despite universal agreement about their aesthetic shortcomings, Crocs found success through emphasizing function over form. They’re comfortable, practical, and durable—qualities that eventually outweighed their visual drawbacks. Chefs worldwide embrace them for their ergonomic benefits, highlighting how utility can triumph over beauty. This pattern repeats across countless industries: designs that prioritize function sometimes sacrifice conventional beauty, yet find tremendous market success.
The phenomenon of “ugly Christmas sweaters” demonstrates another dimension of ugly design: the power of nostalgia and emotional connection. What began as genuinely unattractive garments have transformed into cultural icons celebrated at themed parties and events. These sweaters evoke feelings of nostalgia, warmth, and holiday spirit that transcend their aesthetic shortcomings. They remind us that design operates on an emotional level—sometimes the feelings a design evokes matter far more than its visual appeal. This emotional resonance explains why certain “outdated” design elements periodically resurface in fashion and interior design cycles, challenging our perceptions of what constitutes timeless beauty.
Sometimes, ugly design results from minimalism or a deliberate lack of design. Craigslist’s notoriously basic interface hasn’t significantly changed since the internet’s early days, yet its functionality keeps users returning. Similar examples include IKEA’s wordless instruction manuals—widely criticized yet instantly recognizable and ultimately effective. Apple’s minimalist aesthetic might even be considered “ugly” in its sterility, yet its simplicity has redefined modern design standards. These cases demonstrate how the absence of ornate design elements can create a distinctive identity that stands out in an over-designed marketplace.
Perhaps most fascinating is strategically intentional ugly design. Spirit Airlines deliberately crafted a “cheap-looking” brand identity to reinforce their position as a budget carrier. Their visual choices communicate affordability at every touchpoint, aligning customer expectations with their business model. Similarly, many brands that faced initial criticism for “ugly” logos or design choices—like McDonald’s Golden Arches in the 1950s—eventually became iconic through consistency and ubiquity. What once appeared jarring or unattractive transformed into familiar comfort through sheer persistence and association with positive experiences.
The conversation around ugly design reminds us that beauty truly exists in the eye of the beholder, shaped by context, function, emotion, and time. What appears ugly today might become tomorrow’s classic, and what seems beautiful now may look dated in a decade. Instead of dismissing designs as simply “ugly,” we should consider the intentions, functions, and feelings behind them. Sometimes, the most successful designs aren’t the most beautiful—they’re the ones that most effectively fulfill their purpose, whether that purpose includes being intentionally ugly or not.
No Comments