A flower is always more than a flower. A moth is always more than a moth. The rooster is often much more than a rooster. The object on the right hand side is definitely something special. Not sure if it is true that helmets in old Japan had a metal core, but the outside of them was built out of paper mache. If this were the case, they could have the most fantastic shapes while still sustaining their function effortlessly. Form does not always have to follow function. As long as the core functionality of an object is sustained, we have room for decoration, invention, creative extensions. Sometimes new functionality can be born out of elements without any function. The bare bone approach does not always pay off.
Optimization is not always desirable. Effective strategies do not always lead into a happy an successful future. They sometimes do.
I like the idea of something that is soft on the outside and shaped in fantastic and free ways, and yet contains a hard core, offers the necessary protection.
I like the idea of interactive products. I like to be the co-creator of something, not just the consumer. A toy that speaks five sentences is probably not as inspiring as one that does not speak at all, or as one that can record any information.
A flower is always more than a flower. A moth is always more than a moth. A rooster is more than a rooster. The object on the right hand side does not exist this way. It is a combination of ideas. It is a step between steps. Not every little hop in evolution needs to make sense. Some things have to specifically not make sense in order to inspire new development. Is there really a survival of the fittest?, or is it a much too *effective* way of looking at things?
A drawing is always more than a drawing.