Mercedes Benz' head of design Gorden Wagener has announced that the time of creases is over. No, this wasn't some executive acid trip, it actually meant something. You see ceases in all kinds of cars these days: they're the sudden, superfluous angles in otherwise smooth metal. Creases can have all sorts of aesthetic purposes: making flat surfaces more interesting, making things seem shorter or narrower (which is great on humongous SUV's.)
But it's really gotten excessive. Combined with other unnecessary styling additions like fake vents and chrome accents, we're in an era of ornamentation. It may not be as noticeable because they aren't as ostentatious as tailfins, but it's similar levels excess.
I mentioned before about how much of the radiator grille on a modern cars is often fake. But it's really reached a new level in which cars have fake vents that don't even really look like vents any more. They may have a square of patterned black plastic, but there's obviously no opening, and it's in a place where you wouldn't expect a vent to be, like in front of the wheel. Essentially, they just wanted to break up some plain area of the body, so they just stuck some random shape there.
I'm not some modernist hardliner demanding that everything on a car have a reason. I'm just saying that we've pushed the pendulum too far. With all the chrome and angles on today's cars, we might as well drop the pretense of maturity and go back to putting firebird decals on the hood. So I'll applaud anyone who will push the trends the other way.
But as some have pointed out, the concept car being revealed by Mercedes does still have creases. But it doesn't rely on them nearly as much as other cars. It has a nice rounded, relatively-minimal look. And that brings up something I've worried about in recent years. I used to find Mercedes car designs pretty boring, like they were aiming for the Platonic ideal for sedans. But lately I find like their designs a lot more. What worries me is: I have no idea whether they've improved their designs, or this is just part of the natural aging process for me.
Showing posts with label design. Show all posts
Showing posts with label design. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 19, 2017
Thursday, April 7, 2016
Locked In The Trunk Of A Car
When it comes to cars, there's a whole lot of fakery just to keep people comfortable. I realized this as a child, at a time when vinyl roofs were still popular. They made no sense to me: why would you pay extra for a feature that had no purpose and couldn't even survive the monkey enclosure at African Lion Safari?
In time, I found out that these began as fake convertible tops. Some of them even have a chrome decoration behind the window which is derived from the metal frame supporting the top. Faking that your possessions are more expensive than reality is pretty silly, especially since most convertibles look pretty bad when the top is up, so you're making your car look ugly, but more expensive. Same with the fake-wood paneling that often came on station wagons then. They looked silly to me, but appealed to people who could remember when wood was a legitimate automotive material. But for my generation, the idea of wood vehicles was no more than the premise for those humorous "Packin' a Woodie" T-shirts that I didn't understand until years later.
We're seeing something similar with trunks now. If you're not up on the issue, about twenty years ago, Americans decided that hatchbacks were a humiliating symbol of irredeemable poverty, to be avoided at all costs. However, the rest of the world still likes them, valuing the layout for its utility. So in our globalized world, car companies have to jump through hoops to deal with these different tastes. Some mangle language to convince customers the car isn't what it seems. It's not a hatchback, it's a "sport wagon."
But often, the car maker will design a small car to be a hatchback for most of the world, but then make a special American version with a trunk awkwardly tacked on to the back. This creates a car that is both weird looking and inefficient. I've got to ask, which makes you look poorer: a product associated with poverty, or a product whose whole purpose is convincing people that it isn't associated with poverty.
But now we've seen the beginning of the end for another common car part: the radiator grille. Engines get hot, and to cool them, the radiator needs exposure to incoming air. So we've all gotten used to cars having a big black & chrome opening on the front, forming either the "mouth" or the "nose" in the car's "face."
But modern radiators don't need as much air as they once did, and for aerodynamic reasons, it makes sense for the opening to be as small as possible. Thus, if you look closely, you see that large parts of modern grilles are actually fake. Some of the grille may be closed, or blocked by the bumper. And chrome accents may take up much of the space, as on recent Acuras.
But the real change is with electric cars. They don't need radiators because their motors don't get nearly as hot. The front of the car just needs a few small openings for air to cool the battery and brakes. That leaves electric car designers with a dilemma about what to put at the front of the car. The Tesla Model S has a black grille, but on closer inspection, it's just exposed bumper, a flat hood ornament, and some black plastic. The follow-up Model X just has the hood ornament. And now the newly introduced Model 3 just has a blank space. Clearly they've been trying to wean us off the need to see something between the headlights.
Personally, I don't think it's worked. It still looks weird to me. I hate myself for feeling that way, because I know I'm just the modern equivalent of those guys who bought the ugly fake-wood-paneled K-cars.
In time, I found out that these began as fake convertible tops. Some of them even have a chrome decoration behind the window which is derived from the metal frame supporting the top. Faking that your possessions are more expensive than reality is pretty silly, especially since most convertibles look pretty bad when the top is up, so you're making your car look ugly, but more expensive. Same with the fake-wood paneling that often came on station wagons then. They looked silly to me, but appealed to people who could remember when wood was a legitimate automotive material. But for my generation, the idea of wood vehicles was no more than the premise for those humorous "Packin' a Woodie" T-shirts that I didn't understand until years later.
We're seeing something similar with trunks now. If you're not up on the issue, about twenty years ago, Americans decided that hatchbacks were a humiliating symbol of irredeemable poverty, to be avoided at all costs. However, the rest of the world still likes them, valuing the layout for its utility. So in our globalized world, car companies have to jump through hoops to deal with these different tastes. Some mangle language to convince customers the car isn't what it seems. It's not a hatchback, it's a "sport wagon."
But often, the car maker will design a small car to be a hatchback for most of the world, but then make a special American version with a trunk awkwardly tacked on to the back. This creates a car that is both weird looking and inefficient. I've got to ask, which makes you look poorer: a product associated with poverty, or a product whose whole purpose is convincing people that it isn't associated with poverty.
But now we've seen the beginning of the end for another common car part: the radiator grille. Engines get hot, and to cool them, the radiator needs exposure to incoming air. So we've all gotten used to cars having a big black & chrome opening on the front, forming either the "mouth" or the "nose" in the car's "face."
But modern radiators don't need as much air as they once did, and for aerodynamic reasons, it makes sense for the opening to be as small as possible. Thus, if you look closely, you see that large parts of modern grilles are actually fake. Some of the grille may be closed, or blocked by the bumper. And chrome accents may take up much of the space, as on recent Acuras.
But the real change is with electric cars. They don't need radiators because their motors don't get nearly as hot. The front of the car just needs a few small openings for air to cool the battery and brakes. That leaves electric car designers with a dilemma about what to put at the front of the car. The Tesla Model S has a black grille, but on closer inspection, it's just exposed bumper, a flat hood ornament, and some black plastic. The follow-up Model X just has the hood ornament. And now the newly introduced Model 3 just has a blank space. Clearly they've been trying to wean us off the need to see something between the headlights.
Personally, I don't think it's worked. It still looks weird to me. I hate myself for feeling that way, because I know I'm just the modern equivalent of those guys who bought the ugly fake-wood-paneled K-cars.
Monday, March 21, 2016
Bully For Billy
I just read that the designer of Ikea's Billy Bookcase has died. If you're not familiar with it, it's one of Ikea's most popular and long-running items. I have two of them. How popular is it? Well, you could click that link and read it's Wikipedia page. Or you could just contemplate that it's Ikea furniture with its own Wikipedia page.
Anyway, the designer was Gillis Lundgren, and he actually died several weeks ago. I don't remember reading about it then, so I assume it just happened to be the same day that Donald Trump said something. Apparently, Lundgren not only designed Billy, he's also responsible for Ikea's flat-packing. That's right up there with Allen Keys, wordless instructions, and unpronouncable names in defining the Ikea experience, so he was pretty important.
This article I read was in the Toronto Star, so of course they couldn't pay tribute; they had to give him a backhanded putdown on the way to the grave, by quoting a snobby furniture maker criticizing Billy's effect on furniture. Fortunately, the article did go on to talk about good design, minimalism, etc. But the article was framed around the idea that Lundgren's contribution has been mixed.
Of course, I've seen this case made before, that Ikea is the McDonald's of furniture, dumbing-down and commodifying a business that was once a focus of the design world. Sure your Vejmon coffee table is not the height of furniture. But I have to ask the Ikea haters, where do you think normal people buy furniture? No, not your urban hipster friends, I mean the majority of people. Generally, the answer is Walmart, Sears, or one of various furniture warehouse chains with TV ads featuring men shouting that you don't have to pay for six years. Look at it that way and you realize that Ikea is the most design-sophisticated choice. If they didn't exist, their customers would be buying clichéd old knock-offs of familiar but dull styles.
Really, I wish there were more big-box chains that could get their balance of style and accessibility to the same level as Ikea. No, I realize I'm never going to go to Best Buy and get a cheap iPad that I assemble myself. But if I could get Ikea's level of quality and selection in a general department store, I'd never go to Walmart again. That would be a great contribution to the world, almost as good as encouraging 41 million people to buy bookcases.
Anyway, the designer was Gillis Lundgren, and he actually died several weeks ago. I don't remember reading about it then, so I assume it just happened to be the same day that Donald Trump said something. Apparently, Lundgren not only designed Billy, he's also responsible for Ikea's flat-packing. That's right up there with Allen Keys, wordless instructions, and unpronouncable names in defining the Ikea experience, so he was pretty important.
This article I read was in the Toronto Star, so of course they couldn't pay tribute; they had to give him a backhanded putdown on the way to the grave, by quoting a snobby furniture maker criticizing Billy's effect on furniture. Fortunately, the article did go on to talk about good design, minimalism, etc. But the article was framed around the idea that Lundgren's contribution has been mixed.
Of course, I've seen this case made before, that Ikea is the McDonald's of furniture, dumbing-down and commodifying a business that was once a focus of the design world. Sure your Vejmon coffee table is not the height of furniture. But I have to ask the Ikea haters, where do you think normal people buy furniture? No, not your urban hipster friends, I mean the majority of people. Generally, the answer is Walmart, Sears, or one of various furniture warehouse chains with TV ads featuring men shouting that you don't have to pay for six years. Look at it that way and you realize that Ikea is the most design-sophisticated choice. If they didn't exist, their customers would be buying clichéd old knock-offs of familiar but dull styles.
Really, I wish there were more big-box chains that could get their balance of style and accessibility to the same level as Ikea. No, I realize I'm never going to go to Best Buy and get a cheap iPad that I assemble myself. But if I could get Ikea's level of quality and selection in a general department store, I'd never go to Walmart again. That would be a great contribution to the world, almost as good as encouraging 41 million people to buy bookcases.
Friday, December 11, 2015
Eh B C
So Canada has its own font now. Well kind of; a font maker has created a font to commemorate Canada's 150th birthday in 2017. What's so Canadian about it? For one thing, it - unlike many fonts - can be used for all languages used in Canada, including the syllabic symbols used with Cree and Inuktitut. And I'm glad to see that the overall look seems to be inspired by one of my all-time favorites: the Toronto subway font.
Wired complains that it has some problems, which is just the kind of pretentious perfectionism I always seem to see from font-o-philes. Have a look and you'll see it looks completely - oh my, that middle line in the "B" does look strange doesn't it? I guess it does need a bit of work, but it's a nice start.
But here's the funny/sad/bitterly symbolic part: although you don't have to pay to use it, you can't just download it. As with other symbols of the anniversary, you have to apply for permission. Even though the font was a gift, rather than a taxpayer-funded project, it still feels wrong not to just let anyone have it. Keeping tight control over branding on a national celebration seems downright Harperian.
So if I can't use our national font, I'll use an athlete's font. It turns out that's the latest thing for a transcendent athlete celebrity. A few years back, I wrote a post about athletes with their own logos, but apparently that's passe. Now, Lebron James, Kobe Bryant, and Kevin Durant have fonts based on their logos. I guess that could be useful: if you've got your own logo for branding proposes, you might as well go for other things, like fonts, slogans, or colour schemes. Okay, color schemes could be bad for an athlete, since it would limit you to only signing with teams that don't clash with you.
As part of the aforementioned post on athlete logos, I created my own. So now I apparently have to make my own personal font. Well, I don't have time right now, so maybe tomorrow.
Wired complains that it has some problems, which is just the kind of pretentious perfectionism I always seem to see from font-o-philes. Have a look and you'll see it looks completely - oh my, that middle line in the "B" does look strange doesn't it? I guess it does need a bit of work, but it's a nice start.
But here's the funny/sad/bitterly symbolic part: although you don't have to pay to use it, you can't just download it. As with other symbols of the anniversary, you have to apply for permission. Even though the font was a gift, rather than a taxpayer-funded project, it still feels wrong not to just let anyone have it. Keeping tight control over branding on a national celebration seems downright Harperian.
So if I can't use our national font, I'll use an athlete's font. It turns out that's the latest thing for a transcendent athlete celebrity. A few years back, I wrote a post about athletes with their own logos, but apparently that's passe. Now, Lebron James, Kobe Bryant, and Kevin Durant have fonts based on their logos. I guess that could be useful: if you've got your own logo for branding proposes, you might as well go for other things, like fonts, slogans, or colour schemes. Okay, color schemes could be bad for an athlete, since it would limit you to only signing with teams that don't clash with you.
As part of the aforementioned post on athlete logos, I created my own. So now I apparently have to make my own personal font. Well, I don't have time right now, so maybe tomorrow.
Wednesday, August 12, 2015
Hey Fern!
How influential is this blog? Well, I complained about the design of New Zealand's flag, and a mere three years later, they are changing it.
Good for them. Canada was once in the same position, with an undistinctive flag containing the Union Jack and we changed it. But, if it hadn't been changed back in the sixties, I honestly don't think we would have the courage to do it now.
As I observed last time, the other similarity between Kiwis and Canucks is that we seem to have chosen leaves as our symbols. A lot of the designs use the Silver Fern, and many others use the "koru," which is apparently an indigenous symbol based on a curled up silver fern leaf. But whatever symbol they go with, it looks like they will get a distinctive flag, since most of the designs go heavy on either curved lines or black, neither of which appears on many national flags. I'd go with one of the black-and-white designs divided by the fern. It's simple but breaks the rules.
But overall, they're pretty good designs. As usual, some people are being predictably critical and dismissive, while others are making a big deal of some of the more amateur or humourous rejected designs, even though they really aren't that funny. After all, we've already had years to pour over our own rejected designs.
If New Zealand manages to dump it's old flag, there's a few more countries that should consider it:
A machete and a broken gear? What kind of message is that supposed to send?
If you're going to have a repeating design, why not go full fractal and have crosses in crosses in crosses in...
You have an AK-47 in your flag? And you're surprised no one wants to invest in the country?
If the main thing you have on the country's flag is the country itself, it reminds everyone that you can't agree on anything.
Good for them. Canada was once in the same position, with an undistinctive flag containing the Union Jack and we changed it. But, if it hadn't been changed back in the sixties, I honestly don't think we would have the courage to do it now.
As I observed last time, the other similarity between Kiwis and Canucks is that we seem to have chosen leaves as our symbols. A lot of the designs use the Silver Fern, and many others use the "koru," which is apparently an indigenous symbol based on a curled up silver fern leaf. But whatever symbol they go with, it looks like they will get a distinctive flag, since most of the designs go heavy on either curved lines or black, neither of which appears on many national flags. I'd go with one of the black-and-white designs divided by the fern. It's simple but breaks the rules.
But overall, they're pretty good designs. As usual, some people are being predictably critical and dismissive, while others are making a big deal of some of the more amateur or humourous rejected designs, even though they really aren't that funny. After all, we've already had years to pour over our own rejected designs.
If New Zealand manages to dump it's old flag, there's a few more countries that should consider it:
Angola
A machete and a broken gear? What kind of message is that supposed to send?
Georgia
If you're going to have a repeating design, why not go full fractal and have crosses in crosses in crosses in...
Mozambique
You have an AK-47 in your flag? And you're surprised no one wants to invest in the country?
Cyprus and Kosovo
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)