I wasn't so much making a point as merely observing the world around me at that time - two objects which would both be called bikes yet very different. To someone unaware of their purposes the differences would be startling, but not all those differences were due to their purposes. Some were merely temporal in origin.

As for appearance, yes, I did pass judgment. Aesthetics do matter regardless of functionality. Otherwise why would we care about a bike's paint or bling or the chronological/cultural appropriateness of components? I bet the "That's a great-looking bike" comments outnumber the "I bet that bike functions really well" comments 100:1 in BF, at least in C&V. Elsewhere the ratio may be closer to 1:1. That's still half for aesthetics.

Automobiles are subject to such whimsy more than bikes. There was a trend a few years ago for certain SUVs to be styled as military-industrial armored transport modules. Function (including aerodynamics) aside, they looked ugly to me. But then, car makers will do anything to drive market share. They also have more freedom to make stylistic choices independent of function. The minimalist nature of a bike couples style and function more closely together. A new trend will start the day someone invents a threadless stem which doesn't need all those extra bolts.

And it's all just my opinion, of course.