Karl Ludvigsen (2022) has posted on his Substack newsletter the text of a speech he delivered back in 1989. Included in his remarks is a question that is still important: “will national characteristics continue to play a role in transport design in the future? Yes or no. If yes, why, and if no, why not?”
My perception is that national characteristics in automotive design have mostly disappeared over the last three decades. For example, whereas a Mercedes-Benz or BMW once looked significantly different from cars designed in Sweden, Italy, France, the United States or Japan, today they all tend to blur together. And when they do stand out, it is usually because of superficial styling gimmicks such as BMW’s recent obsession with grilles that look like Chuck E. Cheese.
The auto industry’s bean counters would presumably laud the international homogenization of car design. At least in theory, a generic “anycar” could be popular in a larger number of markets than one with nationalistic peccadillos.
In addition, a vehicle whose basic architecture does not deviate too far from the norm could achieve greater economies of scale by being shared with other brands — regardless of their national origin. This has become an increasingly important consideration as the auto industry has consolidated through mergers, acquisitions and partnerships.
Is the homogenization of auto design a good thing?
I would suggest that it is not. For one thing, the blurring of national characteristics serves to reduce consumer choice. Here I should emphasize that when I use the term “design,” I am not just talking about a vehicle’s styling. What made a Mercedes-Benz W123 distinctive wasn’t just superficial features such as its radiator grille. The unique way the car looked was heavily informed by a greater emphasis on space efficiency, aerodynamics and safety than American cars of that time period.
Also see ‘Mercedes-Benz W123: Back when form really did follow function’
In other words, what made a Mercedes different was ultimately grounded in the automaker’s underlying philosophy of what a car should be. In the postwar era those corporate philosophies could be dramatically different. Often those differences were heavily influenced by the automaker’s nation of origin. German engineers, product planners and marketeers tended to explore different approaches than, say, their French counterparts.
Today you can still see glimmers of differentiation, but it tends to be superficial — at least among the legacy automakers. Whatever else one might say about the influx of electric vehicle startups, they have brought into the industry some fresh thinking that goes well beyond what a front end should look like. A Tesla Cybertruck is a strikingly original design. So is a Canoo. Or a Bollinger.
Also see ‘Is Tesla Cybertruck a brilliant breakthrough or a gimmick?’
Of course, all of the EVs just mentioned are of U.S. origin. Thus, one could argue that design diversity can still occur in a globally integrated industry. Perhaps, but I still think that trying to revive a measure of national design characteristics would be a good thing.
Styling fads could swing back to less homogeneity
Design fads can swing back and forth like a pendulum. At least that’s what designer Jason White (2012) suggested in a blog post he wrote that asked, “So . . . Is Teutonic car design obsolete?” His answer: “It’s quite possible that someday, some year, the market will grow weary of ‘surface entertainment’ and yearn for something more honest. When that will happen is tough to pinpoint, but history suggests that it eventually will.”
Also see ‘Yes, but WHY do today’s automobiles look so similar?’
That’s certainly plausible, but will the fad be similar to the retro design movement, which amounted to little more than a vapid exercise in brand management (go here for further discussion)?
A genuine revitalization of national design characteristics would require corporate management — and their design staff — to let go of their fear of being too different.
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Ludvigsen, Karl: 2022. “Talking Transport Design.” Why Cars Are So Bad. Posted May 18.
- White, Jason; 2012. “So . . . Is Teutonic car design obsolete?” AutoDesign. Posted December. Website no longer online.
Was the height of international automotive design the Mercedes-Benz W123 and Peugeot 404 ?
That could very well be.
Interesting article and lots of clear examples of groupthink. Perhaps we should differentiate the leaders from the followers. The M-B S-Class has proceeded along a fairly strict evolution of design over the last 70 years. Aerodynamics played an ever greater role particularly in the 1980s-90s under Bruno Sacco.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruno_Sacco
I think the current S-Class would look pretty much the same regardless of the competitive pressures acting on it all these years. Its streamlining represents a healthy collaboration between aerodynamic efficiency and styling. The Audi 5000 may well have prodded it initially, but once it got going it needed no more help.
There is also the U.S. pick-up and large body-on-frame SUV market to consider. One could argue that national grounding and individual expression are enjoying a heyday.