Blog Recommendation
Greetings InstaFans and faithful readers. For more frequent blogging on cars and other interesting design topics, check out MetaCool.
Dynamist Blog
Advice for GM
Reader John Kluge writes:
I think that GM needs to take a cue from Ford and redo the corvette along the lines of the new Mustang. Take the Corvette and redesign it to look like a new version of the pre-1968 models, a la the new Mustang. People would go crazy over it. The Corvette already has probably the best performance for the dollar of any car on the market, but its looks haven't matched its performance since the 1968 redesign. If you can't think of new ideas, just steal other people's good ones. Could you imagine a redesigned Corvette based on say the early 60s model? It would be beautiful.
Car Aesthetics: Old Car Edition
My earlier post, drawing on Grant McCracken's talk on 1950s car styling, elicited a couple of exceedingly well informed notes from readers. Gregory Beckenbaugh, who contributes to the Changing Gears blog for car buffs writes, "My father owned several Studebakers when they were just 'cars' and not artifacts." He posted the following to Changing Gears:
According to Ms. Postrel, this Studebaker - widely consdered one of the most beautiful cars ever built - failed because it didn't capture the national mood in the heady days of the early 1950s. She also links to an old Atlantic article from the 1950s, where the man credited with the design of these cars, Raymond Loewy, argues that these Studebakers were too sophisticated for Americans to appreciate.
The real story is considerably more complicated. The Studebaker wasn't a flop because it didn't reflect the exuberant national mood obsessed with jets and rockets, or because Americans couldn't appreciate good styling.
The new Studebakers debuted for the 1953 model year. The 1953 Studebaker line was styled by Robert Bourke of Raymond Loewy Associates. Loewy, however, took all of the credit, as he owned the design firm and promoted his designers' ideas to Studebaker management.
The coupes and hardtops (known as Starlights and Starliners, respectively) are widely considered among the most beautiful cars ever built. The Starlights and Starliners were based on a prototype that Robert Bourke originally designed as a showcar.
Studebaker management loved the prototype, and decided that it would serve as the basis for a radical new model that marked Studebaker's second century in the transportation business (the company, which began by manufacturing wagons, celebrated its centennial in 1952).
But Studebaker couldn't survive selling only sporty, low-slung coupes and hardtops. Its lineup had to include two-door and four-door sedans. Management therefore decreed that the sedan models be based on Robert Bourke's prototype.
That was the first mistake. The second mistake was to place the sedans on a shorter wheelbase than that used for the coupes and hardtops. While the coupes were long, low and sleek, the sedans - the bread-and-butter models of any mainstream manufacturer - were short and dumpy.
A third mistake occurred during the development of the models. Management decided that the frames of the new Studebakers should contain a fair amount of "flex" in order to smooth out the ride (the frame would flex with the road, and thus absorb minor bumps, at least in theory). Unfortunately, when the engine was mounted on the coupe and hardtop frame, it caused the frame to bow, which meant that the hood and front fenders didn't mate properly with the rest of the body! Without the engine, the sheetmetal matched perfectly! The coupes were delayed for several crucial weeks while Studebaker scrambled to work out a fix. The sedans were not affected.
Despite all of this, the 1953 Starliners and Starlights were a success. The problem was that the sedans were duds, so Studebaker as a whole registered lackluster sales in what was a decent year for the entire industry.
The new vehicle market in 1953 was up 38 percent. Sales of Studebaker's handsome new coupes and hardtops increased by 61 percent over comparable 1952 models. But sales of Studebaker sedans dropped by one-third when compared to 1952!
When 1954 rolled around, Studebaker thought it had the situation in hand. But a sales war broke out between Chevrolet and Ford, and both divisions began shipping new vehicles to their dealers, regardless of whether there was an order for them. The dealers naturally heavily discounted these cars. Studebaker and the other independents (Nash, Hudson, Packard and Kaiser) were hammered, as their weaker dealers wouldn't or couldn't discount their wares to match Chevy and Ford. Sales for all the independents dropped dramatically in 1954. Before the start of the 1955 model year, Studebaker had merged with Packard, while Hudson and Nash had combined to form American Motors.
The drop in sales brought out another hidden weakness - Studebaker's labor cost were far higher than its Big Three rivals. Even worse, it had to spread those costs over a much smaller production base. The competitive environment made it impossible for Studebaker to raise prices. (Ironically, GM faces a similar situation today, when compared to Toyota, Honda and Nissan.)
In 1953, Studebaker had one of the most critically acclaimed cars in history. And within two years of its debut, the company was almost bankrupt, and saved only by a merger with Packard. Studebaker limped along for almost a decade, but never really recovered, and finally threw in the towel by closing its South Bend, Indiana, plant in December 1963.
Production continued in Canada for three more years, but the company's engineering and styling departments were gone, so there was no real hope that the Canadian plant was anything more than a temporary arrangement. Studebaker continued to supply cars to dealers, and thus avoided lawsuits for violating the franchise agreements. As sales dropped, and the dealer body dwindled away, Studebaker ended all car production in March 1966. It was a sad end for the nation's oldest car manufacturer.
And W. Edward Howard, Jr. writes:
I'm not sure what Grant McCracken had to say about Loewy's 1954 Studebaker design, but the cars weren't "streamlined" in any 1930's or 1940's curvilinear modern sense. They were basically rather angular wedge shaped, low drag designs (especially the coupes), and actually resembled airplanes much more in cockpit design than other makes at the time. They were regarded as too modern, rather than retro. The GM cars during the 50's were based more on late 1940's aircraft designs in use and production during the 50's. Harley Earl was said to be fascinated by fighter aircraft, and based most of his design elements on early jets.
Earlier Studebakers, from 1949 to 1951 or so, appeared to be airplanes from the front (resembling early P-40s and P-38s), with nacelles, bullet spinners, faired radiator intakes, and struts, and were also perceived to be out of the mainstream. The 1954 Studebakers were a facelift modification of a design from 1952 or so that was quite radical for the time, and had changed very little from 1952 to 1955. They had begin to look outdated, or perhaps too familiar, while still appearing too radical for the mainstream. There was apparently no way to update the shell for mid 50's styling cues.
The big problem from 1954 or 1955 on was that Studebaker didn't have the money for a new design, with wrap around windows, etc., like GM and Ford. The same body shell from the early 50's was used through the early to mid 60's and was by then three or four generations older than the big three. It was chopped off and became the "compact" Lark, which was easy since the design never had reached the length of the other early 60's makes in the first place.
Just one more example of the dispersed knowledge you can elicit from a blog with a diverse, well-informed, and engaged readership. Thanks to everyone who has written to me about blog postings over the years. I don't always have the time to reply, but I always read your emails, learn from them, and appreciate them.
Car Aesthetics: New Car Edition
In Sunday's NYT, James G. Cobb reports more bad news for GM: Now that Buick (average customer age: 68) has finally gotten its cars' reliability and construction up to market expectations, potential customers actually want interesting style:
My test car had a sticker of $32,160, which not only seemed steep, it put the LaCrosse uncomfortably close to some true gotta-have cars from Acura, Infiniti and Lexus. The same money will buy more envy if you invest it in a well-equipped Chrysler 300 Limited.
Don't take my word. Look at how the market values the LaCrosse: with such tough competition, dealers are slashing prices by ever larger amounts, a bad sign for a new car. Edmunds.com, the auto information Web site, reports that in March the average transaction price was 17.2 percent below the average sticker, or $4,702. That compared with a 3.7 percent markdown for the 300, 10.2 percent for the Five Hundred and 8.7 percent for the Mercury Montego.
At least with LaCrosse, the discount isn't on damaged goods; if you disregard matters of taste and styling, it is hard to find serious faults. Come to think of it, that describes the Camry and Accord, too, so right there Buick is in a whole new league.
Yeah, but if you're going to compete with the Camry--Cobb is, in my opinion, too down on the Accord's styling--the quality expectations will be significantly higher. The main lesson here is that competition in the auto industry has ratcheted up quality expectations, and aesthetics is increasingly a basic dimension of "quality."
In the Classroom
If you've used either of my books in a course, I'd like to post the syllabus (see the TFAIE "In the Classroom" section for examples). Please email me a text or link. Thanks.
An Indian Perspective on The Substance of Style
Reviewing The Substance of Style in the Bombay-based Indian Express, Bharati Chaturvedi adds an Indian perspective on the aesthetic imperative:
If one was to accept this proposition, it is also interesting to see how the world around us constantly reiterates it. Forget sweet boxes at weddings, which are supposed to be decorated. Think instead of the tree with red lights enclosed in PVC winding around it. It's not a universal sign, but it is popular ornamentation for a range of service providers, from dhabas to taxi-stands. In part, it's there because it meets with the current trend of flashy, bright, bejewelled and sequinned. It attracts attention precisely because many of those who will see it are likely to find it visually appealing and react to it positively. Spray-painted blue carnations invite similar reactions and buyers, no matter how bizarre it seems to have bright blue flowers.
In India, carpenters, metal workers and a host of other similar professionals have traditionally known this anyway, resulting in stylised and ornamented products for daily use. Newer mass products now realise they need to actively invest in the visual. These cater to our fantasies, feed our imagination and make the aesthete in us dig into our pockets.
So then, is this consumerism, the evil vice of the last 100 years? No way, I would say. It's closer to a worldwide acknowledgement that the human species is a highly sensory one, with a particular affinity for the visual. We turn to our senses intuitively as guides, and many of our judgments are based upon this.
Speaking of reviews, I'm working on an update to this site. If you know of any linkable reviews that aren't on the reviews page (or if you can supply permission and text for any that aren't currently online), please let me know.
It's a Southern Thing
I've long maintained that many of the cultural characteristics and personal behaviors, good and bad, that Northern commentators (largely white) consider "black" are in fact southern. Being dissed makes the typical good ol' boy just as irrationally mad as it makes an inner-city black guy. And I'd suspect you'd find plenty of Bell Curve-like results if you could break out whites of southern origin, regardless of where they live now, as a separate ethnic group (even more so if you could exclude certain highly educated subgroups, notably the Presbyterians whose attitudes toward education and involvement in commerce have made them the souther equivalent of Jews or Chinese).
Apparently Thomas Sowell agrees. Here's a bit of what he wrote earlier this week in the WSJ:
The culture of the people who were called "rednecks" and "crackers" before they ever got on the boats to cross the Atlantic was a culture that produced far lower levels of intellectual and economic achievement, as well as far higher levels of violence and sexual promiscuity. That culture had its own way of talking, not only in the pronunciation of particular words but also in a loud, dramatic style of oratory with vivid imagery, repetitive phrases and repetitive cadences.
Although that style originated on the other side of the Atlantic in centuries past, it became for generations the style of both religious oratory and political oratory among Southern whites and among Southern blacks--not only in the South but in the Northern ghettos in which Southern blacks settled. It was a style used by Southern white politicians in the era of Jim Crow and later by black civil rights leaders fighting Jim Crow. Martin Luther King's famous speech at the Lincoln Memorial in 1963 was a classic example of that style.
While a third of the white population of the U.S. lived within the redneck culture, more than 90% of the black population did. Although that culture eroded away over the generations, it did so at different rates in different places and among different people. It eroded away much faster in Britain than in the U.S. and somewhat faster among Southern whites than among Southern blacks, who had fewer opportunities for education or for the rewards that came with escape from that counterproductive culture.
Nevertheless the process took a long time. As late as the First World War, white soldiers from Georgia, Arkansas, Kentucky and Mississippi scored lower on mental tests than black soldiers from Ohio, Illinois, New York and Pennsylvania. Again, neither race nor racism can explain that--and neither can slavery.
The redneck culture proved to be a major handicap for both whites and blacks who absorbed it. Today, the last remnants of that culture can still be found in the worst of the black ghettos, whether in the North or the South, for the ghettos of the North were settled by blacks from the South. The counterproductive and self-destructive culture of black rednecks in today's ghettos is regarded by many as the only "authentic" black culture--and, for that reason, something not to be tampered with. Their talk, their attitudes, and their behavior are regarded as sacrosanct.
The people who take this view may think of themselves as friends of blacks. But they are the kinds of friends who can do more harm than enemies.
For understandable reasons, Sowell condemns this "redneck culture" in his new book Black Rednecks And White Liberals. But this often-violent honor culture also gives America much of its backbone. It is, after all, the Jacksonian America that so fascinates bloggers and foreign-policy intellectuals.
Carnival of Tomorrow
The Carnival of Tomorrow, a roundup of future-oriented blog posts, is up and definitely worth a stop.
The Carnival is illustrated with an image promoting the 1939 World's Fair--hardly "tomorrow" but still a resonantly glamorous image of the future. In my research on glamour, I'm interested in exploring exactly how and why the 1930s produced so many enduringly glamorous images, not only the motifs of Golden Age Hollywood and "the future" but streamlined moderne (a.k.a. American Art Deco) styling, superhero comic books, and all sorts of transportation imagery, among others (feel free to send me additional examples).
Thirties glamour also had a very dark side, in which the aesthetic editing of unruly details turned from propaganda tool into totalitarian reality. Frederic Spotts's 2003 book Hitler and the Power of Aesthetics demonstrates that the famous "failed painter" was, in fact, an aesthetic pioneer. Here's Spotts introducing the book's thesis:
It was Hitler's aesthetic talents that also help to explain his mysterious grip on the German people. What Stalin accomplished through terror, Hitler achieved through seduction. Using a new style of politics, mediated through symbols, myths, rites, spectacles and personal dramatics, he reached the masses as did no other leader of his time. Though he took away democratic government, he gave Germans what they clearly found a more meaningful sense of political participation, transforming them from spectators into participants in National Socialist theater.
The book has photos of Hitler rehearsing his speeches, adjusting every gesture for maximum effect. Here's a good review by Jean Bethke Elshtain.
[I actually wrote this post yesterday but forgot to switch it from "draft" to "publish."]
Cell Phones on Planes
On Marginal Revolution, Tyler Cowen recently asked for arguments in favor of a government ban on cell phone use on planes: "Can I claim that cell phone calls are a socially wasteful means of signaling to your spouse that you care? Can I claim that commercial airplanes are modern (short-term) monasteries, and that markets undersupply such temples of silence?" His policy arguments may be tongue in cheek, but I share Tyler's objection to introducting more chatter into airline travel. I like to think, read, and sleep on planes (not necessarily in that order), and I already resent the constant chatter, some of it government-mandated, from the pilot and flight attendants.
I can't see any serious argument for a government ban, but that doesn't mean I foresee a future of yack-filled air travel. Airlines have ample reason to restrict or segregate cell phone usage, either by policy or suasion. Steve Portigal posts a comprehensive analysis of the various interests involved and concludes with a recommendation airlines could apply to all sorts of issues:
Could the airlines do anything to mitigate the impact of the doofus? [The doofus screaming on his phone, that is.--vp] If the airlines want to start changing behavior, they might take a cue from JetBlue, where the current seat back cards take a positive and humorous approach to creating a common experience. Rather than telling passengers what they are forbidden to do, they seek to engage everyone in a common goal of having a positive experience during the flight. Perhaps the most effective way of creating this type of change is not more warnings and admonishments, but to create a totally different experience, making it clear that the passengers aren't following the standard script for "trip on a plane" but reframing that experience into something new, where new rules, expectations, and social norms can be created from scratch. You might not litter in a small community, but perhaps you would in a big city. You wouldn't introduce yourself to someone in a grocery checkout, but you would at a party. Change the frame, and the behavior can change, too.
JetBlue sets the tone from the moment you board: on most airlines the flight attendants watch while you struggle to find space for your carry-on luggage. On JetBlue, they greet each passenger, take their bag, and hurry ahead of them, finding the next open storage space, optimizing space usage (just like a great grocery packer knows what they are doing, so do these guys), relieving the passenger of a frustrating task, and speeding the boarding process. Already the rules begin to be changed. Once you get to the seatback card (labeled a "guide to how to make the world a better place...one flight at a time.") you may begin to consider the flight experience differently. The card reads "Be nice. Attitude is everything on JetBlue. Kindness, respect and consideration are the way to a nice flight." Amusing graphics that evoke traditional flight safety cards depict passengers creating a common experience, for example introducing themselves to each other. Sure, many of us do that on a plane, but JetBlue takes some ownership of it, and encourages it, with just enough humor. Other graphics discourage people from bringing their own smelly fish on board, or sleeping on the shoulder of their neighbor, or removing their shoes when their feet are too pungent.
JetBlue (and some of the other newer, more innovative, and interestingly cheaper airlines) are rethinking the entire experience they are creating for passengers. A fresh look at air travel won't eliminate turbulence, of course, but they could easily extend this to help people manage their behavior. Rather than a turf war over knees, shoulders, ears, and mouths, creating a common experience could encourage coorperation, establish new social norms (and social sanctions rather than punitive ones) that would allow for polite cell phone usage. Sure, I'm skeptical too. Adding some verbiage to the pre-flight announcement and posting a few stickers isn't going to do it. A new approach to creating a relationship between the passengers and the airline, and between the passengers themselves is the key. The dinosaur airlines aren't capable of this (i.e., United's Ted is a cheaper United, with better graphic design; it's not a re-think of the flight experience the way JetBlue is).
And now, for a little excerpt from the glamour book proposal-in-process:
Treating glamour as a luxurious or nostalgic style, instead of an imaginative process, has more than intellectual consequences. This category error leads to futile efforts to restore lost glamour through aesthetic tinkering.
Thus airlines try to recapture the glamour of air travel by redesigning their flight attendants' uniforms. But flying is no longer mysterious, nor is it graceful. Fashion tweaks cannot overcome the public's ample experience with late flights, crowded seats, grumpy crews, crying babies, and minimal service. Giving flight attendants a stylish, slightly retro look may improve crew morale and make flying a little more pleasant, but fashion alone can't bring the glamour back. Glamour is not a quality that can be created with aesthetics alone.
Glamour and the Writer's Life
In his poem "The Lay of the Last Minstrel," Sir Walter Scott introduced the word glamour into English from Scots, where it meant a literal magic spell that kept the subject from seeing things as they really are:
And one short spell therein he read:
It had much of glamour might;
Could make a ladye seem a knight;
The cobwebs on a dungeon wall
Seem tapestry in lordly hall;
A nut-shell seem a gilded barge,
A sheeling [a shepherd's hut] seem a palace large,
And youth seem age, and age seem youth:
All was delusion, nought was truth.
Scott also used the word glamour in his diary, describing a phenomenon all too familiar to writers and editors:
August 12. -- Wrote a little in the morning; then Duty and I have settled that this is to be a kind of holiday, providing the volume be finished to-morrow. I went to breakfast at Chiefswood, and after that affair was happily transacted, I wended me merrily to the Black Cock Stripe, and there caused Tom Purdie and John Swanston cut out a quantity of firs. Got home about two o'clock, and set to correct a set of proofs. James Ballantyne presages well of this work, but is afraid of inaccuracies -- so am I -- but things must be as they may. There is a kind of glamour about me, which sometimes makes me read dates, etc., in the proof-sheets, not as they actually do stand, but as they ought to stand. I wonder if a pill of holy trefoil would dispel this fascination.
The word glamour is occasionally still used in the old sense, most recently (in my experience, that is) on the penultimate episode of Angel. I'm working on a proposal for a book on glamour, which is why you're getting etymology rather than discussions of means-testing social security. I promise some less esoteric entries (though not necessarily on social security) this evening.