As a reprezentative of the "bangle bimmers" the Z4 (M) Coupe is IMO far more worthy to be considered than the 6er.

There really is no such thing as avant-garde design ...all predictions of "the future" are invariably set to be seen from a contemporary context ..thus, the results will inevitably be expressions of the present -- but that may be at a very highly cultured level, like concept cars.

Well Audi is changing -- they have established a strong position -- they are not about sudden and irrational change ....that would go completely against the aesthetic principles of the brand. As I said earlier, Audi is a design-led manufacturer ...that goes much further than just the appearence of their cars .... Audi's aesthetic philosophy is holistic -- it is incorporated into the entire system of the brand: marketing, manufacturing, and corporate.

Vorsprung durch Technik -- this is more than just a pragmatic slogan -- it is a metaphysical one too -- the whole culture of the brand is built around this pusuit of advancement through technology -- it is a clean, all encopassing, and very Teutonic aesthetic.

Well sure ...it is clearly a part of the evolution of the brand ...I think we have seen quite clearly that Audi have become more expessive with their recent designs

That is a moot point Imhotep Evil -- I don't think Audi is following BMW in terms of actual design perse ...but of course BMW have been enormously influential in the design world ..Audi, being a pragmatic and receptive design-led company, are naturally going to take notice of design philosophies from other leaders ....but like BMW, that is not confined to the auto-industry ....but also from all facets of art, music, architecture, science, information technology and IT culture, philosophy, anthropology and sociology. There are people who are professional trend spotters -- they are employed by companies like Audi, Nike, IBM, etc. to research all manor of social, cultural, and design trends.


I am using the term metaphysics in a more general sense ... the subconscious, underlying associations of semiotics and specific aesthetics in our contemporary culture -- of course, these associations and meanings can vary from one culture to another ...or from person to person ...but also can change over time.


Well that was precisely my innitial point.

I'm trying my hardest not to call this whole thing a bunch of BS, but I do see the point about Audi. That said BMW has had just as much "go wrong" in their search for design greatness also. The 7-Series, 1-Series and the rear of the 6-Series are just plain unnattractive. Now we can wax over philosphy all day long, but at the end of the day it is what it is - very unnattractive. The only one of the three that can boast or claim to have an entirely attractive or cohessive is Audi, that I get and agree with, but no way I'm going for that with BMW.

No one liking BMW's designs can call another company's design's "goofy". That is plum ridiculous.

M

Quattro.*






















* Available as an option in most of their models.

Do you have any idea how cheesy that slogan really is? Lay off the magic mushrooms for a while, we are talking about cars and their desings and you guys are bringing stuff like Nietzsche here. Jesus!

Marcus ... you must understand that I am not necessarily referring to the actual vehicles ...but design philosophies behind them.

This is most certainly not BS ....this is very serious discussion. Audi and BMW have taken the lead (for now).

Bruno Sacco has left behind a great legacy at Mercedes -- but Sacco was an old-school Modernist, working with mid-twentieth century design principles ...those principles have been a part of Mercedes culture until very recently -- the S class, ML, CL .etc.. represent a shift in philosophy at Mercedes.

I still think Mercedes is a great manufacturer and in time they will start to emerge as a more powerful force. Chris Bangle has brought to BMW, a late-twentieth century Post-Modern approach to the whole concept of car design. I realize this conversation is getting academic ...I am sorry about that, but it is difficult to explain concisely.

Design is far more than just making things look pretty ...Chris Bangle, for example, takes a highly academic approach to design.

Well, then they do not translate their interpretaion of the future, seen from a contemporary point of view, in production cars.
They don't have that certain thing to make them interesting, tough they are beautifull.


When cars such as the R8 become their standard, rather than their exception, that's when they'll become a design leader.
I contradict your point that Audi's philosophy is wholistic, since they don't have one. That's what VW/Audi din't realise when they started chassing the big boys.


Don't buy this. Their brand doesn't have a culture of their own.


Switching from Aero To Bauhaus to Humanity is evolution ?!
Not to mention that Audi have not created the brand image/philosophy of their own like the rest.


The idea/philosophy is the same, humanity, they said it themselves. It's just that the execution is very diferent.


Agreed.


Are you not comfusing "man sybolical animal" with "metaphysical" man ?!

Also Nietzsche did not have a problem with religion in general, but with monotheistic/abrahamic religions.

In his critics of metaphysics Nietzsche was outraged by the fact that Shopenhauer considered moral (cristian moral based on the notion of sin ) part of the human nature.

And the metaphysical man thus becamed a christian man, a creation of christian philosophers. On his work "Birth of Tragedy" he proved Shopenhauer wrong.

Metaphycs is thus a buch of sterile words/sentences, and the metaphysical man an illusion-invention, anti-human. But man, seen by Nietzsche, is a creator, capable of developing symbols, his own universe.


So we share the same opinion here, we just expres it a bit diferently.

lol this discussion is to heavy for me..
interesting buy to heavy..
would love to have some car designers like Hussein and such to comment if they really do appriciate BMW and AUDI design more than MB as you guys claim..

When cars such as the R8 become their standard, rather than their exception, that's when they'll become a design leader.
I contradict your point that Audi's philosophy is holistic, since they don't have one. That's what VW/Audi din't realise when they started chassing the big boys.


Don't buy this. Their brand doesn't have a culture of their own.


I simply cannot agree with you Imhotep Evil, Audi have most certainly developed a strong principle/philosophy around the expression of technology through design. It is a very direct aesthetic, less emotional than BMW ..but no less metaphysical.


Switching from Aero To Bauhaus to Humanity is evolution ?!
Not to mention that Audi have not created the brand image/philosophy of their own like the rest.

I have no idea what you are talking about ...Audi have been very consistent ...slowly evolving over time but still with the same basic tenets integrated into all their products.


The idea/philosophy is the same, humanity, they said it themselves. It's just that the execution is very diferent.

So What? ...BMW didn't invent this idea either ...one could argue that Ferrari have been "human" since the beginning ...and certainly Pagani are very "human" -- what they are referring to is design that arouses emotional responses ....through semiotics and aesthetics.

The problem with assuming that the Modernist approach to design is lacking in "humanity" is that is fails to understand it in its actual context. Modern design, from which Audi takes its roots, is less emotional and more academic ....the aesthetics are perceived through an intellectual context -- much like how mathematicians or physicists can be deeply moved by the beauty of an equation or formula. Some people will listen to Mozart and just hear pretty music, while others will be deeply stimulated ...lifted to a higher place aesthetically or spiritually.

Have you ever had chills from a sculpture or painting -- or felt tears in your eyes as you listen to some music -- something that stimulates your whole sense of being human?

Are you not comfusing "man sybolical animal" with "metaphysical" man ?!

Also Nietzsche did not have a problem with religion in general, but with monotheistic/abrahamic religions.

In his critics of metaphysics Nietzsche was outraged by the fact that Shopenhauer considered moral (cristian moral based on the notion of sin ) part of the human nature.

And the metaphysical man thus becamed a christian man, a creation of christian philosophers. On his work "Birth of Tragedy" he proved Shopenhauer wrong.

Metaphycs is thus a buch of sterile words/sentences, and the metaphysical man an illusion-invention, anti-human. But man, seen by Nietzsche, is a creator, capable of developing symbols, his own universe.

I am no expert in Nietzsche, Imhotep Evil, I am impressed with your knowledge of him and Schopenhauer ...Nietzsche was the supreme existentialist ... he believed in human subjective existence over metaphysics. This does not directly relate to our discussion here.

I am using the term metaphysical as it relates to abstract thoughts and associations -- these may be subjective or cultural.