I kind of agree too, and lets face it, the whole point of domestication was to the end of use. And the vast majority do not show. I have some problem with the breeding to standard at the detriment of the chicken being useful otherwise. The inbreeding that is necessary for this doesn't create a stronger longer lived line. I am a middle of the road sort of person that loves the beauty of hen that best resembles what we have determined to be the standard of perfection, but really have no use for the bird myself if it isn't productive to some point. I love the docile nature of the reds I have, the fact that they are under foot when I am doing things that would put some birds to flight, but of course that is the more natural reaction than the assumption that I am not about to step on them. My line is also laying rather well which is the only way they are existing in my backyard. yard ornaments laying other ornaments.
I agree with this 100%. A good looking bird is only good as a good looking piece of meat can be. The real accomplishment, I believe, is breeding both a good looking bird and a functional one. If function follows form~which I'm finding out is far from the case~then, if one can achieve good form, it should follow that they have good function. Since that isn't the case, I'll have to plan for function first and form later, if that can even be achieved.
For me, a breed isn't worth much conserving if it doesn't produce food efficiently and cannot reproduce its own kind reliably. The SOP judging used to have criteria gauged towards judging for performance also but they got away from that. I'd like to see that come back. Perfection, for a chicken, just can't be achieved if they no longer can perform the function for which they were bred in the first place.
Might be a harder row to how but worthy all the same. I am too frugal to feed chickens that don't lay well, be they pretty or not.