German Car Zone

All I am saying is BMW and Audi are working at the most cutting-edge level of production car design right now -- design students are almost invariably attracted to the most cutting-edge design.

We have said on numerous occasions that we wished Hussein was working for DCX -- they need to be bold enough to lead the auto-world world with new design ideas as much as they lead with their technology.

It seems odd to me that the most cutting-edge manufacturer in the world, in terms of technology, is so conservative with its design.

Mercedes can afford to be far more adventurous -- they certainly have spent a fortune on cutting edge, high-culture architecture recently -- I hope we start to see some much more adventurous and forward-thinking designs soon -- BMW and Audi are very good ...but Mercedes could still be better -- there is so much opportunity right now ...they just need to be brave enough to do it. BMW took great risks with Bangle ...but it paid off.

Mercedes do not have to be so unconventional as BMW ...but they should be more forward-thinking. I wish one of these German manufacturers would be brave enough to finally banish wood from their top luxury interiors -- or at least use it in a more interesting way, the wood thrown around the interior of the S class looks like a passionless afterthought.

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.

Here we'll agree to disagree. I would use the word sybolical/"tragical" as oposed to 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.

Aero, Bauhaus, Humanity.
These are the design philosophies that Audi has chased/used/switched to in the last 25 years.




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.

Nope, BMW have been the ones who came up with the Humanity philosophy in design. For example, the asimetry of the BMW concepts, when asked Bangle replied that humans are not symetrical.

The arousial of emotional responses does not necesarily equall the Humanity philosophy chased by BMW.

As for Ferrari, in the begining it was about shape follows purpose (= to win races). Same with Pagani, their car looks like a LeMans sport-prototype from the 1980s.


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 metaphysics are perceived through an intellectual context -- much like how mathematicians or physicists can be deeply moved by the beauty of an equation or formula ...what may appear to be very uninteresting viewed through one context, can be very stimulation when viewed in another. 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 wept uncontrollably at some music that moves you -- something that stimulates your whole sense of humanity?


My point from my view is that Audi don't have a philosophy of their own behind their designs.
They, said that they wanted "to capture the human link", but BMW said the same thing earlier. I don't see how Audi is chasing after the modernist-lacking_of_humanity aproach, when themselves said quite contrary.


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.

The point of it was, that for what you're saying Nietzsce would have used the words sybolical and "tragic", not metaphysical.

Geez, I wish I had the time to post to such valuable opinions as Roberto has posted. I understand where he`s coming from. Looks I missed out on most of the fun here because of work.

I will say this though, (I don`t have much time) but Mercedes design estblishements were literally reinvented by Bruno Sacco when he came on the scene some time back. His direction should have evolved in a revoultioary
mannor. This is what I was expecint the new designs to flow from and I know other MB faners were expecting the same. I believe the new design director at MB is following "BMW" fads too much. This is the main reason MB has slightly lost it`s touch with the currant designs. MB is trying it`s best to stay in the "fresh" game and this is main problem with the designs. Despite my minor gripe I still love the CL63 AMG!! That car is hands down the best looking non-exotic 2-door on the planet right now! Bow-down!!

Imhotep Evil, you have some very strong opinions and some unique ways of seeing things. ...but I must explain what I mean by metaphsical.

Symbolical is too specific Imhotep Evil ... it refers to signs and symbols with specific meanings. I am referring to the "coded" messages (signs and symbols) suggested in the design that arouse the subconscious.

Metaphysics in Modern art and design refers mostly to the subconscious associations a person makes with particular signs and symbols (semiotics). These associations may be learned (cultural/environmental) ...or gained through personal experience (subjective understanding). Post-Modern design generally communicates more directly, less intellectually and more emotionaly -- this is what BMW are trying to achieve with their "Human design" -- in this respect, you are correct, it is anti-metaphysical design.

The human link (as you put it) in high Modernism (Bauhaus) design -- is not so directly emotional ...but can achieve a high degree of aesthetic stimulation, however, this requires a cultural understanding of the Modern context -- most of us do have a cultural understanding of this Modern context -- it is the context of high technology and industrial engineering -- this is metaphysical design. Audi still subscribe to this methodology ...but they are a Post-Modern car company and so this Modernist ideology is only one aspect of the Audi design philosophy -- I see irony in Audi's design philosophy ....that is a purely Post-Modern trait.

Design plays a major part in communicating these high-technological values of contemporary industrial engineering and information technology .....it creates an overall "effect", expressing and arousing our awareness of the "culture of technology".

Also, you are talking rubbish when you say BMW created the concept of humanity in design -- God almighty, that is one of the tenets of Post-Modern architecture -- nothing new there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Imhotep Evil As for Ferrari, in the begining it was about shape follows purpose (= to win races). Same with Pagani, their car looks like a LeMans sport-prototype from the 1980s.

Give me a break Imhotep Evil -- Ferrari and Pagani road cars have never been purely "form follows function" -- they are absolutely loaded with complex subliminal references (codes) that go far beyond anything pragmatic and essential to performance. They are designed to heighten our senses, arouse our subconscious -- stimulating primal instincts and emotions ........excitement, aggression, lust, sex. We would mostly associate this with the Italian passion for beauty in design -- but it stimulates very basic human desires.

Yes I understand what you are saying Imhotep Evil, but the design language Audi uses is often more metaphysical than "human" -- I think I worded that sentance (above) a bit incorrectly. Audi's design language still refers back to a Modernist aesthetic ...but from a post-modern context -- this is ironical ..but irony is in itself a purely Post-Modern attribute.




I think Audi have evolved through different stages -- the poly-philosophical aspect of Audi's culture is utterly indicative of the Post-Modern condition -- a kind of cultural schizophrenia ...Audi are not alone there ...both BMW and Mercedes have also experimented with various ideas over the past 25 years.

Quote:

The arousial of emotional responses does not necesarily equall the Humanity philosophy chased by BMW.

So how do you define "humanity" in design? ....I have always assumed it was about emotion and a heightened level of sensory stimuli.

Woah, I'm having a headache following this high-level talk.

The thing to me is: whatever the coherence in design may be, whatever the design language is, the end result is that it must be appealing and pleasing to the eye. Despite BMW's 'holistic' design, from what I understand from Roberto, that the whole car's design gels together well, the end result is something revolutionary, something so unique that some people cannot come to terms with. However, I must say that BMW's design has appealed to the new generation of car buyers who are looking for that extra zest in their cars.

Audi also has 'holistic' design, and I find their cars to be very neat and tidy, if I could put it that way. A different approach from BMW, being conservative but still a design that speaks as a whole.

Mercedes however has an amalgamation of design... I can see where Roberto is going with this. Elements from BMW's design language fused with attempts to integrate old-school Mercedes design cues - this, to me, is simply messy. But then again, to look at it from simple aesthetics, the beauty of the S (an example of this amalgamation) is undeniable.

LOL -- yep..that's it James ...it just needed someone to put it clearly and succinctly ....thak you for doing so

OMG, big mistake here, if you belive symbolical refers to signs and symbols with specific meaning.
You also don't seem to make the distinction between archetype vs. symbol vs. emblem, atribute.

- "the (chosen) one" is an archetype, it is a product of the primitive man, of the collective unconscious, with a specifical meaning, identical for every individual;
- the police badge is a emblem;
- wings are an atribute that refer to aviation;
- symbol is something more complex; it's the triadical relation between

a) an object
b) the mean/method thru witch the designation is done
c) the interpretative conscience = man as an individual subject or men as an colective subject

A symbol is created by associating (designating) one or more diferent meanings (more profound, that go(es) beyond) by the the interpretative conscience to an object.

A caracteristic of the symbol is that " it does not have a real existence as part of the physical world; it has a meaning (semnification)".

The same symbol can have diferent diferent colours and meanings depending on individuals, nations, ethnic groups, rases, religions, historical eras, or the climate of the time.

Its primordial meaning(s) can change, or it can even lose its state as a symbol.

A symbol "isn't rigid or inflexible, but mobile".

Neptune’s trident is the devil’s pitchfork, but it's also an emblem, or a simple decorative design.

And it can be coded/cripted, ofcourse.

Codification is a process whereby conventions are established. For instance, in Hollywood cinema the white hat became codified as the signifier of a 'good' cowboy.

But codes do evolve, and thus the fundamental flaw of structuralist semiotics (the synchronic perspective) is revealed. For they say/belive or tend to give the impression that codes are static, witch is false.

And therefor archetypical would be the word you've comfused with symbolical.





Thanks.


Audi's offical design philosophy is "Emotive" aka pursuit of humanity. Officialy the ditched Bauhaus.



I never said BMW created the concept of humanity in design, they however made a philosophy out of it, witch Audi also now share.





Nope, Enzo Ferrari started by building racing cars, who's only purpose was to win. The only thing Enzo Ferrari cared in the begining was usually the engine, and later as he admited, a good design for him a was a winning design (not a sensual/stimulating one).
Later on things have changed.

Quote:

They are designed to heighten our senses, arouse our subconscious -- stimulating primal instincts and emotions ........excitement, aggression, lust, sex. We would mostly associate this with the Italian passion for beauty in design -- but it stimulates very basic human desires.

Agreed, but it wasn't always so.

That is a part of it but also:

Agreed with this.
Now if only the rest of MB fans would admit/accept this.


Here we diverge in opinions, to me the S is no beauty (great(est) car underneath tough), but cars suck as the CLS and CL are.