Modernism in car design

I find it interesting that not many car people are interested in art and design.

Cars are 50 percent art and design and 50 percent engineering.

File: Ferrari Modulo (1970).jpg (268KB, 1200x710px) Image search: [Google]

268KB, 1200x710px

>>17241185
Probably for that very reason. Buildings can be extremely design focused because it doesn't take much to fulfill their purpose. Besides not collapsing and providing room on the inside there's not much a building has to do. Of course good architecture goes much further, but for the basic necessities that's it.

Cars on other hand are severly limited in design in order to maintain their function. They have to handle well, offer visibility, offer interior comfort, fit on the road, function reliably, it restricts them to a relatively common basic layout. Crazy designs are limited to concept cars because they don't have to work in the real world. Nevertheless within the boundaries set by engineering there's still a lot of design philosophy and beauty found in cars, just not to the same abstract degree as in architecture.

File: bmw_m535i_uk-spec_9.jpg (300KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

300KB, 800x600px

>>17241185

I agree, the driving experience is overwhelmingly dominated by cabin design and ergonomics, they make a gigantic difference in your enjoyment of driving dynamics and speed.

>>17241185
It's because car designers and designers in general are fucken dumbshits since the early 80's

You have cars like most American 50-60's cars that incorporated the style at the time and Volvo 140's that had a identity beyond looking like a box of lines someone's shook on top a table with skinny tires

>>17241185
More like 5% art and 95% engineering.
The outside panels make up 4% of that 5%, where you stick your cockring in the centre console is the other 1%.

File: FHACphotoTurbo+Phantom+Courtyard+s.jpg (248KB, 1473x822px) Image search: [Google]

248KB, 1473x822px

>>17241203
Also cars are mass market products while buildings often end up being one-offs. If more cars were one-offs you'd see more unconventional designs in them. In fact you can already see very unconventional designs if you look at modified cars.

>>17241203
>>17241215

Modernism isn't restricted to architecture, we can see the effects ofit in mass market consumer products like furniture and kitchen appliances.

For people like Dieter Rams and Dietrich Lubs objects are designed simply so that people can use them and appreciate their form, while they retain modesty.

If it can exist with coffee machines,radios, chairs, clocks and watches there's no reason this can't exist in car design where the fundamental building blocks are the same. functionally all these objects serve one purpose based on a common design, but their design can be differing wildly.

Consider an average car like a Ford Focus, we're used to the shape but objectively it's very angular motive and has a large focus on aesthetics, compare that to a MK1 Golf for example.

>>17241213

The suspension makes up about 10% of the overall components of the car but has around 40% of the development time. What is your point?

The design of a car takes as much time as the engineering, despite the percentage of components being smaller.

>>17241185
the japanese disagree with you

>>17241167
Could you be any more fucking pretentious? Get lost queer architecture stopped being cool in the 70's.

>>17241284

OK Billy Bob, go and slap your friends on the ass and talk about how gay art is compared to wrestling.

Of course. There's elements of modernist design elements in all cars from the 30s, 40s, 50s and 60s.
Since that's the era of modernist design. What a stupid fucking question.

File: homor face.jpg (21KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 320x240px

>>17241167
Dieter Rams is a fucking millennial catering neo-Brutalist hack. Baby's first ID tier crap. Retro 70s bleakness is not good design, but simply simple, and appealing to simply simple simpletons.

>>17241294

>le brutalism is bad meme

Alright homeboy, show me some non modernist design that is good, useable, not incredibly expensive, aesthetically pleasing and not modernist.

File: KFlAOmE.jpg (24KB, 333x333px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 333x333px

>>17241290
>>17241287
I literally went to school for architecture, lol.
Dropped out for engineer when I realized how pretentious and useless it was. Enjoy designing "simple but elegant, a nod to the craftsman" gables in a cubicle for tract homes. You are not Louis Khan.

Industrial design specifically, is shaped largely more than anything by advances in engineering and material sciences. Where non-brainlets prefer to congregate.

>>17241305
A fucking cheapo Target owned Crosley shit can pull that off. Brutalism is largely garbage; complete soullessness,devoid of human factor. Feel free to appreciate it, but lack of design =/= good design.

Are you of the opinion that any design that isn't completely neutral is bad and cluttered?

>>17241167
Brutalism is shit tier architecture.

File: not this shit.jpg (72KB, 798x449px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 798x449px

>>17241325
This duder is spot on. Fedora unironically tipped at you anon.

If you think apple aesthetics are high design, you're the type of cancerous retard clogging the design industry with pretentious uselessness, a handicap to industrial progress and daring design. In short, OP is shit.

>>17241325

>Industrial design specifically, is shaped largely more than anything by advances in engineering and material sciences

No argument here, in fact, I was never refuting this point. Technological advance is largely the reason for aesthetics behind design thanks to new possibilities. You still fail to explain what is fundamentally wrong with modernist design.

>ergonomic
>cheap
>aesthetic
>versatile
>useful

Explain the pretentious negative here.

>>17241338

>a handicap to industrial progress and daring design.

Yes, because modern design, especially car design isn't over saturated with products that try too hard to be 'daring, unique, modern and innovative', just look at the shitload of over designed cars with angry headlights that make up the entire market right now.

I don't particularly care for Apple design.

>>17241326

> complete soullessness,devoid of human factor

Explain

>Are you of the opinion that any design that isn't completely neutral is bad and cluttered?

obviously not, design can have different purposes, but suggesting that simple design is a lack of design is a misnomer.

>>17241338
To me the idea of an architect at least in the fountainhead sense is just out dated now. Modernism was a completely new idea of thinking, but it's design principles are creatively inherent for us now; it's a part of our culture. The age of the interesting rockstar architect is over. Any engineer that is even just interested in design can take the fundamentals learned and do something intellectually indecipherable from any other "great" work. It's not a field where you make a name for yourself anymore unless that name is built on pretension. That's why people who are "into" modernism and contemporary design are so fucking trite.

>>17241363
And the fact that it's all been done. We've deconstructed buildings and cars to absolute bare utilitarian nothingness to even exposing their structures anti-architecture. There's no more self awareness or irony to extract from modernist design. Everything you do is just a tip of the fedora to a rockstar designer with his name in a book from 40 years ago.

>>17241362
>I don't particularly care for Apple design.
You seem to be holding one of their designers as a litmus for greatness so I doubt that. Or maybe you're backtracking hypocritically, or just misspoke. ;^)

> complete soullessness,devoid of human factor
Dieter Ram scheisse is just that. Simplistic to the point that it's just raw unstyled flat panels over the engineering. No style or personal touches nor creativity involved. He might as well be pirating the engineers designs as his own.

>obviously not, design can have different purposes, but suggesting that simple design is a lack of design is a misnomer.
See above^, his designs add nothing to what is just base function. I don't consider putting a flat piece of white plastic over a transistor housing to be any unique form of design. It's just brutalist crap. Are you a first semester ID student or just a millennial aware of some new slant on design I'm just not privy to?

File: toyota-corolla-altis-1.jpg (48KB, 800x434px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 800x434px

I'll contest that current car design seems to be completely devoid of any competency so I acknowledge that there is actually something to being a good designer, but the field is highly saturated with brainlets and pretentious hacks.

>>17241392

>You seem to be holding one of their designers as a litmus for greatness so I doubt that.

Dieter Rams never designed for Apple, what are you fucking talking about?

>Dieter Ram scheisse is just that. Simplistic to the point that it's just raw unstyled flat panels over the engineering. No style or personal touches nor creativity involved. He might as well be pirating the engineers designs as his own.

It's idiotic to suggest that the flat panels of his work are unstyled, if we want to look at unstyled and purely functional we can see that in a whole host of military equipment. There's an obvious reduction and consideration of the placement of different elements in his work. These are the personal touches, they don't necessarily have to be flames or a red LED panel with tubes coming out of it.

> his designs add nothing to what is just base function.

It's ridiculous to suggest that bad design exists where there is no addition to the base function. An object cannot be bad when it fulfills it's function well.

>>17241325
>engineering
>non-brainlets
top meme my man

File: 1488911865482.jpg (991KB, 2500x1406px) Image search: [Google]

991KB, 2500x1406px

>>17241420
>>17241363
>>17241167
Wow, this thread turned into a pseudo-intellectual circlejerk.

>>17241167
Let me sum up modern car design for you:
AYY LMAO

File: 2016-Ford-Flex-engine.jpg (151KB, 1020x428px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 1020x428px

I think the Flex is pretty brutalist. Just a massive slab of a car that doesn't give a fuck, nothing but 90 degree angles and straight lines. It's even better in dark grey or black, like a monolith they slapped some wheels on.

File: 65 continental.jpg (96KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 1280x720px

>>17241768
Also the late 60's continentals

File: maxresdefault.jpg (747KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

747KB, 2048x1536px

>wanting brutalist cars

fuck off. opulence and victorian excess in a comedic fashion is the only acceptable design

>>17241779
I've always wondered how expensive it is to replace those windshields, vs a more normal-shaped one.

File: le-corbusier-voiture-minimum-01.jpg (53KB, 980x606px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 980x606px

Nigger already designed a car
Closest equivalent is the beetle (mechanically) and the 2CV (in form)

Rams drove a Porsche.
80's Audi is also pretty close to his rational aesthetic

File: galaxie4.jpg (449KB, 1600x1062px) Image search: [Google]

449KB, 1600x1062px

>>17241786
It was significantly less expensive when new, of course. It's just glass cut into a special mold.

>>17241796
I mean if you took it to a glass place now, how would they even reproduce it?

File: 4dc7e02s-960.jpg (125KB, 960x639px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 960x639px

>>17241790

File: 00k0k_ezg234qiWv3_1200x900.jpg (95KB, 1200x670px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 1200x670px

>>17241800
You wouldn't - you'd have to go to a website like Classic Industries and buy one that's already made, about $450, and have a glass place install it (or do it yourself). The internet has made owning any classic car much easier.

File: tata-nano-8_0.jpg (60KB, 900x596px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 900x596px

>>17241167
My vote goes for the tata nano.
>utterly minimal
>obviously usable
>exists for a purpose without pretense
>innovative packaging
>is not an eyesore

Compare that to an angery eyes, overstyled kei car

>>17241880
out of all the vehicles posted in this thread, this one is the most effective at conveying total brutalist totalitarian hopelessness and subjection

If every car were like this we would live in 1984

>>17241911

> total brutalist totalitarian hopelessness and subjection

why?

Modernism doesn't = only utilitarian

It's just a way of design that simplifies, there's no reason why you can't have a modernist sports car or discotheque or motorcycle.

File: 353w2.jpg (41KB, 640x430px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 640x430px

>>17241911
got you covered fa... I mean comrade

File: brutalism.png (12KB, 760x187px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 760x187px

>>17241305
>>le brutalism is bad meme

But it is.

File: VillaSavoye.jpg (59KB, 792x594px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 792x594px

>>17241983

>modernism must be grey

No, that's just a consequence of bad maintenance and a mental association with poverty thanks to government social housing and bad maintenance.

As a design these things are revolutionary and interesting, you just mentally associate them with poor and therefore bad.

File: 1353906060732.jpg (33KB, 244x245px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 244x245px

>>17241994
>revolutionary and interesting
>he then posts a fucking box

>>17242001

>he doesn't know about the villa savoye

dumbs gonna dumb

>>17242002
Maybe it was revolutionary in the 30s, but it will never be interesting. In a world where everything is now boxes, it's lost whatever revolutionary spirit it had.

>>17241657
>I'm stupid and can't keep up thus it's pseudo-intellectual.
k

>>17241657
>i'm not smart enough to understand this discussion
>posts a Lexus interior

hahaha this meme writes itself

File: newtoyotasupra.thumbnail.jpg (53KB, 770x382px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 770x382px

Sure