Conversely, A lot of time something looks good "because" it works well.
I had one old structural engineer spend a great deal of time trying to convince me that beautiful bridges were stronger than than ugly bridges. because our ideas of beauty are so tied to what works well. I am not entirely convinced, I have seen the sins some of these so called designers do in the name of "looking good" but I do see his point.
Many people (including me mostly) don't understand why their eyes feel something as "good-looking" or "beauty". It boils down to symmetry being a big part of it, and sometimes symmetry creates working solution. A bridge being the perfect example for that since you need to balance the weight between both sides of the bridge it's easy to get this while also "looking good". But I believe symmetry is not the only thing our brain accounts to beauty. I would love to know more about that topic.
I’d argue that the elegance of a design solution—engineers design things—is what the structural engineer was referring to. The next question is what is elegance in regards to a solution to a problem? Simplicity? Economy, both financial and technical? Aesthetic? The difficulty we have is that few people agree. When I studied industrial design in the early nineties, we were taught that design is merely the process of solving a problem. In fact, when dissecting a brief, the first goal is to establish the problem that needs solving is. The aim of a designer (or indeed an engineer) should be to incorporate all three elements that I mentioned. Sadly, those that struggle with the aesthetic, dismiss it’s importance out of hand.
I had one old structural engineer spend a great deal of time trying to convince me that beautiful bridges were stronger than than ugly bridges. because our ideas of beauty are so tied to what works well. I am not entirely convinced, I have seen the sins some of these so called designers do in the name of "looking good" but I do see his point.