I guess you did not understood what I meant by Universal. Modern art is rooted in functionalist:
" Functionalism, in architecture, is the principle that architects should design a building based on the purpose of that building....Augustus Welby Pugin wrote that "there should be no features about a building which are not necessary for convenience, construction, or propriety" and "all ornament should consist of enrichment of the essential construction of the building"...The roots of modern architecture lie in the work of the Franco-Swiss architect Le Corbusier and the German architect Mies van der Rohe. Both were functionalists..."
What is said there is not different in what regards aesthetics in Yacht design, you have just to substitute yacht by building and you will have:
Functionalism that is on the roots of modern yacht design, is the principle that NA should design a sailing yacht based on the purpose of sailing. The design should not be influenced by anything other than necessary for convenience, performance and building. All traditional elements that serve no performance purpose should be eliminated and the beauty of the boat will result exclusively from the search of a better sail performance.
This approach will result in an Universal approach in the sense that what makes a boat sail better and be faster in Australia is not different than what makes a boat faster in Europe or US. This approach is strongly based on a scientific research and uses extensively sail racing as means of improving cruising boats, even if slightly. The designs from the American Cabinets of Reischel & Pugh or Farr will not be different from the ones of the Europeans Judel/Vrolijk, Owen and Clark or Finot/Conq neither different than the work of the South American JK, Soto Acebal or the Australian/NZ designers like Greg Elliott, Bakewell-White and Murray Burns & Dovell.
A traditional approach is not an universal one for the simple reason that the shapes and traditions that are used to "ornament" contemporary sailboats vary widely with regional traditions. That is way Bob Perry talks about an American Yacht design while we can talk about Dutch yacht design when we refer to the boats designed by Gerard Dijkstra.
Any discussion about "Modern" aesthetics is complicated by the fact that the terms "modern", "modernism" and "modernist" are used somewhat differently depending on the area of practice, be it painting, literature, philosophy, architecture, etc. As Paulo notes, within architectural practice, "modern" or "modernist" is closely associated with functionalism ("Form follows function" - Bauhaus), with an emphasis on science and technology in the pursuit of designs optimized for an object's specified use.
In this respect, modernist design tends to minimize any feature - i.e., "ornamentation" - that doesn't contribute to the optimal functionality of the object.
Having said that, even modernist design must make accommodation for considerations that might not be strictly considered "functional" - i.e., the aesthetic tastes of the customer, which are important to his/her sense of satisfaction with the object being designed.
In such cases, you see examples of what we would consider more traditional designs enhanced by contemporary performance-enhancing qualities like high-aspect rudder blades and strut-bulb keel configurations, or the use of carbon fibre in spars and rigging. These are the types of compromises that are frequently made by naval architects in the design of yachts.
Looking at boats like the Dehler 46 and Sydney GTS43, here we see modernist principles influencing almost every aspect of the design, with a premium placed on sailing performance. But even there, we see compromises - e.g., the closed transom on the Dehler 46 - it definitely serves a cruising/comfort purpose, but is probably less optimal from a performance standpoint than the open transom of the Sydney GTS43.