|
Interesting article. He is correct in identifying successful examples of the brand-centric design, as opposed to trashing the concept altogether.
Not sure why Pontiac would want to make their cars look like a Pontiac, given the less-than-superlative brand image associated with GM these days. I've rarely seen a Pontiac I like, with the exception of the new Solstice, which look like nothing like any other Pontiac.
An element that I think the article misses is how brands may define beauty for a culture. It comes down to a perception of beauty that develops in each culture. One culture's positive association with a gap in the teeth (a sign of beauty for some African cultures) is not seen so positively in Europe or the Americas. American's have traditionally held a stronger association with bigger, more mulcular cars, whereas, in perception at least, Europeans have favored more compact and agile cars. Brand influence has played a role in these preferences.
So, BMWs are beautiful - no argument there. Would a BMW-looking Pontiac be as succcessful as the same car badged as a BMW? Probably not. I think the aesthetic of a BMW, while beautiful, is also representative of the quality and potential of these cars. It also reflects a lifestyle that incorporates the finer things. Whereas a BMW-looking Pontiac parked a at truck stop in the mid-West would have a different appeal, notwithstanding the design language.
All this to say, with wanting coherence, that while design language can be developed in a free environement or one with some pre-determined parameters, the perception of beauty or the appeal of the final product may be influenced in large measure by the fealings associated with the brand, as opposed to an objective assessment of beauty.
Just a thought.
|