Why are modern arms so ugly?

Halcro -
My original post was correct then, the major advance is the arm tube. As you have articulated there are many other aspects to this arm, many of which have been used before. If you really want to debate the no headshell then look at the Ediswan Arm of 1955 - this is a monocoque structure with cartridge AND phono built into the arm, even had a volume control on the arm.
Seriously though mounting an armboard on magnets and dialing up the softness sounds like a tone control to me. I'm firmly in the camp of having a rigid closed loop between cartridge and groove. No I dont use the Vector as my own personal preference for tonearms is
1. Tangential tracking air bearing
2. True unipivot
I'm happy to acknowledge the likes of Continuum pushing the envelope and challenging current thinking on arm tube design and performance, but one must also acknowledge the designers gone before who have designed, developed & articulated many of the ideas used in the rest of the arm.

Dover,
I was a little rash in defining 'Modern Arms' as advancing the art and science?
We all agree that...as Raul says....tonearms are not 'Rocket Science'.....unless you want it to be?
What I really meant by 'Modern Arms' as opposed to the classic arms of the 70s and 80s is the struggle for slight advances with new technologies whilst treating very seriously the important requirement for 'on the fly' adjustments.
Such arms are typified by the Phantom II with Magnaglide and Micropoise, the Triplanar, the Reed, the Durands and the Kuzma 4Point as well as the Continuums.
Having said that......the Micro Seiki MA-505 came with VTF, VTA and anti-skate ALL 'on-the-fly' 30 years ago. As well as having Azimuth adjustment and hydraulic elevating as well as descending arm mechanism.
With this amount of 'on-the-fly adjustment, it made extracting the finest performance from any cartridge particularly easy and thus compared, in sonic ability, to many superior arms of its time and even those of today.

Halcro,
I dont think we are that far apart. One of the debates I have been having with myself for 20 yrs in terms of tonearms is the adjustability and ease of setting up accurately vs the added complexity in the arm with the subsequent tradeoffs in rigidity and energy dispersion. The Triplanar is a good talking point - does the gain in accurate setup outweigh the disadvantages of added complexity. Back in the old days the more you removed from the arm the better they sounded eg tonearm lifts etc. For VTA adjustments we made metal blocks with set screws such that we knew 1/4 turn = 1/1000th inch.
We would slip these under the arm lift or whatever was available hanging off the pillar - gave us repeatable, measurable VTA adjustment, and you just remove the block when done.
If I were to redesign the ARO I would either thread the arm pillar and mounting board and eliminate the silly alan nut that holds the pillar ( weak point of many arms I believe ) or put a VTA threaded needle under the arm pillar with a teflon tip so there is minimal additional points of contact, or you can disengage the VTA adjustment contact points when done.

Does anybody regard the Breuer or Brinkmann or Raven as beautifully designed tonearms? They look very simple (lookings only of course), a bit Bauhaus design like.

best @ fun only

Well the Breuer and Brinkmann are not modern arms....but I don't find them particularly elegant.
The Raven pushes no boundaries and is rather pedestrian looking.
I much prefer the looks of the Shroeder arms in terms of their proportions and clarity of purpose.
Of the modern arms, some of the 12" upper Reed models are not so bad.
Happy Nandric? :^)