performance and longevity of the watch itself. If affects the distribution of the oil, how the parts act against each other, and hence the time keeping properties of the watch itself. Use this website to research the issue. For example, from here:
"Surface finish is not just for looks. The surface finish of materials as well as their shape plays a key role in maintaining the oil where it is supposed to stay."
And as to the design,: the 24 second incline, whether you like the design or not, is at the limit of the speed of rotation for the tourbillon cage. It is the product of considerable R&D, not only in the design of the cage, the metal used, the speed of rotation, and gearing to use that speed to regulate the time keeping of the watch. All non-trival, and believe or not, companies like Richemont (who might own a few of the brands you wear on your wrist), simply invest in the GF company to learn something that helps with the timekeeping and design properties of the watch that you might have on your wrist.
Liking the design or not is a subjective issue, but to dismiss the work as the effects of macro photography or an over emphasis on finish or technical aspects, you are belittling the advance and the time taken by Greubel-Forsey in producing a watch at the fore front of what can be accomplished in haute horologie. All agree that George Daniels produced the finest finished watches possible, and yet when a watch firm tries to accomplish the same, with front end tested innovations, some would rather look to knock it down. As I said, you may like the design of the watch or not, but dont look to ascribe the achievements of the watch as an over-emphasis on finish and the technical wizardry of the digital macro photography.
The picture does not lie - it only makes harder for watchmakers to get things exactly right. And as mentioned, finish has a purpose.
Andrew H