CAR Magazine: BMW's influence in car design, by Stephen Bayley


martinbo

Staff member
This is a very interesting column by one of the world's leading design analysts - Stephen Bayley.

BMW's influence in car design, by Stephen Bayley

Story Here

Analysis
23 January 2012 09:23

To appreciate the resonance of the last decade’s revolution in BMW design, it’s necessary to understand the company’s huge historic debt to a modernist ideas factory that became the world’s most influential art school.

'Art and technology : a new unity' was the Bauhaus slogan and before the Second World War, BMW already had a department of Kunstlerische Gestaltung (Artistic Development), the first of its kind. The Nazis closed the radical Bauhaus in 1933, but in the fifties its spirit was revived in Ulm’s Hochschule fur Gestaltung. Everything we understand by German Design was confirmed by Ulm: clarity, discipline, logic, fuss-free surfaces and the (sometimes forbidding) semantics of technical authority.

The modern BMW look is established - with Hofmeister knick

The 1961 Neue Klasse BMW 1500 was the Bauhaus-on-wheels and established a BMW design language that was to last for 40 years: a prominent sculpted beltline, airy glass-house, fine proportions, restrained detail, fastidious graphics and that famous reverse bend in the C-pillar. Known as the (Wilhelm) Hofmeister-knick, after the design director who retired in 1977, this motif was so strong that it survived the revolution that began when Chris Bangle joined BMW from Fiat in 1992.

Bangle had telegraphed the world his artistic intentions with the 1993 Fiat Coupe, a strange-looking car with an awkward stance, a sullen aspect and surfaces animated by arbitrary slashes. But his first public BMW proposal was more elegant: the 1999 Z9 concept was a large, handsome machine which tested most of the design ideas that became productionised in the E63 6-series.
The Chris Bangle era at BMW design

While Bangle was developing his own very clear – not to say aggressive - personal design agenda, new production technology arrived to aid its expression. Just as Harley Earl was able to create fifties bizarrerie for General Motors when US Steel began supplying strip steel in wider measures, so the introduction of new pressing equipment was a stimulus to Bangle. By the turn of the millennium, you could press body panels comprising compound curves in a single action. For BMW, the result of this process innovation was the design revolution that comprised the E65 7-series, launched at Frankfurt in 2001.

The Bauhaus-inspired BMW design language begun by Paul Bracq and developed by Wilhelm Hofmeister resisted frivolous change. The message to customers was: our solution is correct and only evolutionary development is possible. That was now binned. It was easy to be critical of the new 7-series. And people were. It was lardy and slab-sided; lumpen, not lithe. Then there was the controversial rear where some complicated sculpture created an unsettling effect: it looked as though someone had thrown a heavy metal blanket over a smaller car that was struggling underneath the weight. Bangle took the heat for this challenging car (even if his assistant, today's BMW design director Adrian van Hooydonk, had shared authorship).

Revelling in the BMW design controversy

But the controversy only fuelled Bangle’s conviction. Dan Neil of The Los Angeles Times named the new 7-series one of the '50 Worst Cars of All Time' (in a list that included the Renault Dauphine, Triumph Stag and AMC Gremlin), but Bangle argued that BMW’s established design language was exhausted. There was only so far you could go with gentlemanly refinement and, artistically, BMW was hitting the bump-stops. An aesthetic revolution was required. Customers were, in succession, confused, dismayed, hostile and, eventually, appreciative. That the 7-series no longer looks shocking is proof of the rightness of Bangle’s argument.

Then came E60, stranger still. Aesthetic imbalance replaced conservative fine proportions. Lutheran quietude was replaced by baroque flourishes. Rationality was replaced by wilful expressiveness and, overall, there was a general sense of aesthetic instability. Industry rivals were smug or grudging, but all took careful note. It was a turning-point in the history of car design: manufacturers now began to assault consumer expectations rather than merely gratify them.

At Renault, Patrick le Quement also confronted customer expectations, but with much less success. Meanwhile, BMW drew a new baseline for design: nowadays all cars are more sculpturally complex and visually satisfying. It’s what Ford’s Martin Smith calls 'surface entertainment'. Because of Bangle, you have to have it.

Bangle's high point: the 2003 5-Series (E60)

The E60 5-series was a BMW which did not look like a machine-tool. It looked organic. Confounding the customer was a strange formula for success, but the 2003 5-series confirmed a change not just in BMW’s design direction, but in all the assumptions of car design. Nowadays every mid-size car has something of the 5-series about it. Bangle said: 'It is the most avant-garde car BMW has ever done. When that thing is in front of me, I just want to follow it.' The world did.

So we return to the role of art in car design. Bangle was influenced by the 1988 New York Museum of Modern Art Deconstructivist Architecture exhibition which popularised Frank Gehry and Zaha Hadid, building designers of perverse complexity whose morphological ideas often exceed the tolerance of the public and the potential of technology. And in 1951 this same museum had declared cars to be 'rolling sculpture'. That’s what Bangle created: difficult, but not boring. He left BMW in 2009 and now makes wine in Tuscany.

About Stephen Bayley:

Stephen Bayley was once described as 'the second most intelligent man in Britain'. This is controversial and very possibly untrue, but he is indisputably one of the world's best known commentators on modern culture. Tom Wolfe said of him 'I don't know anybody with more interesting observations about style, taste and contemporary design.' As well as being The Observer's architecture and design correspondent, he is a consultant and author

Excerpts from Wikipedia: Stephen Bayley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Stephen Paul Bayley (born 13 October 1951 Cardiff, Wales) is a British design critic, cultural critic and author."

"In the 1970s he was a lecturer in the history of art at the University of Kent, but first became prominent in the 1980s as an authority on style and design when Sir Terence Conran chose him to head up the Boilerhouse Project,[1][2] at the Victoria and Albert Museum, the V&A, in London. This was Britain's first permanent exhibition of design and it was host to more than 20 exhibitions in five years including Ford Motor Co, Sony, Issey Miyake, Coca Cola and Taste. He then became Chief Executive[2] of the Design Museum in London which grew out of the Boilerhouse Project.

In 1989 he was made a Chevalier de L'Ordre des Arts et des Lettres, France's top artistic honour, by the French Minister of Culture and in 1995 he was Periodical Publishers' Association Columnist of the Year."

"In 2007, Bayley became The Observer's architecture and design correspondent."

"He writes for several newspapers and is a contributing editor of GQ. He is also a regular columnist in British CAR Magazine where he offers a critique of contemporary motoring design from a philosophical perspective."

I have a wonderful coffee-table book called "Cars: Freedom, Style, Sex, Power, Motion, Colour, Everything" by Stephen Bayley and the insight it affords the enthusiast into the progression of car design and the icons therein is truly special. He is one of the world's most prolific commentators on car design. In the book he too lavishes praise on the E60.
 
4fe21d6fa417a2e4b08a95e65b0506b7.webp

8ffc62b677858102c460e5d2fda82eb3.webp

ccb05adfc6c5c5a950cf8df16d813d2f.webp


:t-drive:
 
Was reading one of the F10 reviews not too long ago and noticed that the editor lamented how the new 5er doesn't have the shock value that Bangle's (and van Hooydonk's) design brought to the table. Here are a couple of other recent bits regarding the reassessment of Bangle's influence.

Steve Cropley, of Autocar:


Jason Castriota interviewed in AutoExpress:
f4522fe9a04ff8b8c22f987439857d03.webp
 
Great read. I think the E60 is a mostly terrible design that can have its nice moments, so it's definitely not a dull experience, but just quite crude and not timelessly focused, IMO. But the article is spot on in how it and Bangle behind it revolutionized car design.... however, in my eyes, perhaps for the worse.

What's funny is how so many people who didn't like the "Bangle era" and feel as if in just a few months Adrian Von Hooydonk presented this all new idiom of conservative design, credit the former for the "mess" and the latter for the "fix". It couldn't be further from the truth. Bangle showed versatility as he helmed the new conservative design idiom, and Von Hooydonk himself penned some of those "Bangle era" messes, such as the E63 6-Series.

That said, since Bangle stopped all that forward push and fussy design when he launched the very conservative and cohesive F01, which then bled to all the other BMW models, was that him admitted defeat in his pursuit to make revolutionary designs? Was that BMW Corp telling him "NO MORE CRAZINESS", or was that simply him tactfully taking a breather to calm people down, so he could go back in and throw their senses in a flurry for the next generation?

Either way, you/I might not desire his work, but you have to respect the man. Kind of like a poor mans Steve Jobs of the Car Design world. He definitely is the most prolific and sought after Car Designer of our time.
 
Was that BMW Corp telling him "NO MORE CRAZINESS", or was that simply him tactfully taking a breather to calm people down, so he could go back in and throw their senses in a flurry for the next generation?

Here's hoping for a flurry next generation :D
 
Great read. I think the E60 is a mostly terrible design that can have its nice moments, so it's definitely not a dull experience, but just quite crude and not timelessly focused, IMO. But the article is spot on in how it and Bangle behind it revolutionized car design.... however, in my eyes, perhaps for the worse.

What's funny is how so many people who didn't like the "Bangle era" and feel as if in just a few months Adrian Von Hooydonk presented this all new idiom of conservative design, credit the former for the "mess" and the latter for the "fix". It couldn't be further from the truth. Bangle showed versatility as he helmed the new conservative design idiom, and Von Hooydonk himself penned some of those "Bangle era" messes, such as the E63 6-Series.

That said, since Bangle stopped all that forward push and fussy design when he launched the very conservative and cohesive F01, which then bled to all the other BMW models, was that him admitted defeat in his pursuit to make revolutionary designs? Was that BMW Corp telling him "NO MORE CRAZINESS", or was that simply him tactfully taking a breather to calm people down, so he could go back in and throw their senses in a flurry for the next generation?

Either way, you/I might not desire his work, but you have to respect the man. Kind of like a poor mans Steve Jobs of the Car Design world. He definitely is the most prolific and sought after Car Designer of our time.

I read an interview with Bangle by CAR a few years ago, I remembered he said the complete design cycle will last for two generations, revolution design for the first generation, and refinement of those new ideas for the second generation. It is quite clear that everything is progressing well according to his plan, and he didn't succumb to external criticisms.

Car designs were either too slab sided, geometric, or they are just too soft and shapeless in the "Pre Bangle" era, there was no surface tension in the styling, cars were not sculptured, I suppose he knew what had to be done even though it won't be pretty or nice. Initially people rejected his ideas like most would when they were presented with something completely new, but over time both customers and most importantly other designers have finally understood what Bangle was trying to achieve and eventually they also applied some of Bangle's ideas into their work.
 
I agree but I think may took his ideas and applied them better, speaking on the E60 and E65 and that era. I just don't think those designs had genius behind them except for the genius BEHIND them.... I know that makes no sense, but what I'm trying to say is the "idea" was genius, the application IMO was not. The new generation definitely made things nice again, but with that it lost that pizazz that made the last generation so innovative. Maybe it's asking too much for anyone to do both at the same time? Clearly if Bangle was the first to jump into the waters, naturally he might have to make a few missteps whilst finding his way around, while others can carefully safely watch him, study his routes and what he could have done better.... then jump in and do better.
 
The point of Bayley's commentary is not to describe how successful or beautiful Bangle-led BMW designs were. Rather, it's an observation of how influential BMW's drastic, risky, challenging and all-out brave paradigm shift in design has been on automotive stying since. Whether the designs were universally accepted or dismissed as being successful is neither here nor there. This is what Bayley conveys in the article as the styling revolution ushered in by BMW and the virtues of their bravery have been extoled countless times during my 10 year+ association with this community.

Also, in spite of being bundled together under the auspices of the Bangle-era - the E65 and E60 are actually quite far apart in terms of design language. Whilst the E65 ushered in the era of odd-being-the-new-premium with syling intended to challenge, the actual culmination of this vision was the E60 whose surface treatment paved the way for a whole new era of sheetmetal forming. Quite different from the conventional surfacing of the E65.

So, to reiterate: the success of BMW's conviction to "go radical" lies not in model-for-model styling assessment but much more in the huge influence it had on the industry. That's the fundamental tenet of this discussion.
 
I get that, and agree with it. Impossible to disagree with it really, unless one is completely ignorant.
 
now let me pose this question, maybe this question has been posed already....

How successful and influential would have the designs been if it was not a BMW?

Would a "lesser" brand been successful with such risky designs, or did BMW's engineering, handling prowess, powertrain, reputation, etc. make it more palatable? And thus more endeared by consumers and competitors alike? Also, if we did not have such a boom in demand emerging markets, would it been the success we see today?

These are hypothetical and will be difficult, if not impossible, to answer. Keep it civil. :D
 
now let me pose this question, maybe this question has been posed already....

How successful and influential would have the designs been if it was not a BMW?

Would a "lesser" brand been successful with such risky designs, or did BMW's engineering, handling prowess, powertrain, reputation, etc. make it more palatable? And thus more endeared by consumers and competitors alike? Also, if we did not have such a boom in demand emerging markets, would it been the success we see today?

These are hypothetical and will be difficult, if not impossible, to answer. Keep it civil. :D

Gooood question. I personally think that those designs could have all been flopped and been forgotten if they weren't under the BMW umbrella and all that it was worth.
 
I can`t understand how nobody tells something wrong about the W211 E class of the same era with the E60. I think E60 was criticized because of its predecessor the E39. E39 was gorgeous, stunning beautiful, I don`t find my words to describe how beautiful that car was. I think the E39 was the most beautiful car in his years, so it was a very very difficult mission for designer to improve that design. Everybody always expects from a new generation to move upright with design, to look more beautiful, new and fresh, but to keep the idea of the car untouched. E39 is now a classic. E60 moved up in a whole new dimension of design. E60 looked fresh and youthful at that moment. After the E39 the E60 looked like it was designed by an alien. So, the design the the E60 was hard to digest and created controversies because it looked to avangardist at that moment. But now I think everybody understood what Bangle did there, because E60 aged very well, still today the E 60 looks fresh and cool. That car must be understand. I am a Merc fan as probably most of you know that, but I criticized a lot the W211 E class. Put it close to an E60 and it will look incredible dated, just like their not competitors. E60 rocks IMO. But, I think the interior was the worst part of that car. Compared again to the E39 again we see clearly a revolution there. E39 was elegant with all that leather and wood and quality was at his best. E60 looked empty, people those days wanted many buttons, for them buttons were simply to use those days not that stupid innovation called Idrive. Everybody hated it, that button. Customers asked each other : Where`s that wood, where are all those cool stuffs, all those simple buttons, we knew perfectly how to use them ? Plus, they changed that "oriented to driver dash" and upset customers as well bacause that was a tradition of Bmw. I like E60, and incredible, it works better for me without that M- Package. I hate that M Package.
 
Also, let's not forget that Bangle oversaw all the current RR models we see today, which again, I have some negative opinions toward, but I think that it's safe to say that if it weren't for him, we wouldn't have the copycat Chrysler 300 on the market. :D

If there was a list of Designers who's brains I could pick, it would be (in order): Bangle, Sacco, Pfeiffer. Wagener hasn't given me a sense of mystery enough yet to entice me in that way just yet.
 
Also, let's not forget that Bangle oversaw all the current RR models we see today, which again, I have some negative opinions toward, but I think that it's safe to say that if it weren't for him, we wouldn't have the copycat Chrysler 300 on the market. :D

Chrysler 300C has turned into a Lancia suddenly, here in the EU.
 
I can`t understand how nobody tells something wrong about the W211 E class of the same era with the E60. I think E60 was criticized because of its predecessor the E39.
E39 was elegant with all that leather and wood and quality was at his best. E60 looked empty, people those days wanted many buttons, for them buttons were simply to use those days not that stupid innovation called Idrive. Everybody hated it, that button. Customers asked each other : Where`s that wood, where are all those cool stuffs, all those simple buttons, we knew perfectly how to use them ?
What, aside from a lack of revolution that the E60 presented, do you find wrong about the W211? To me, it looks like a natural progression of the W210 and while both may look a little Jaguar-derived in the headlights, the W211 remains very much a classy, elegant design IMO. In the area of headlights, the E60 was criticized for its "Dame Edna look," which is not unwarranted.

I'm not so sure that everyone hated iDrive. Yes, many journalists didn't like it, but customers seemed to warm up to it. So much so that iDrive remains a rather ubiquitous feature on BMWs to this day, rather than some obscure option box that nobody ticks. In a way, it seemed like a mix of Bangle's flame surfacing and the old Bauhaus school of minimalism found their way into the interior. You simply couldn't carry on the same design theme of the E39's interior when the outside had changed so radically. So doing away with the buttons opened up BMW's interior designers to take a more artistic approach to interior surfaces.
The other effect, which I'm sure isn't lost on BMW, is that tech-savvy (read: younger) customers would find the concept of iDrive appealing. It would be a perfect mechanism by which to hook the click-and-scroll iPod generation. This is important in keeping a lid on the upwardly creeping age of their demographics, even if it meant some old-school clients might look elsewhere.
 
now let me pose this question, maybe this question has been posed already....

How successful and influential would have the designs been if it was not a BMW?

Would a "lesser" brand been successful with such risky designs, or did BMW's engineering, handling prowess, powertrain, reputation, etc. make it more palatable? And thus more endeared by consumers and competitors alike? Also, if we did not have such a boom in demand emerging markets, would it been the success we see today?

These are hypothetical and will be difficult, if not impossible, to answer. Keep it civil. :D

Well, you can see the little success Renault had with the Vel Satis, Avantime, and to lesser degree, the Megane.

I, like K-A, think Bangle change automotive design for the worst. The really, utter worst. The Bangle and post Bangle era cars (in general, not just BMW) are IMO the ugliest ever.

Regards!
 

BMW

Bayerische Motoren Werke AG, abbreviated as BMW is a German multinational manufacturer of luxury vehicles and motorcycles headquartered in Munich, Bavaria, Germany. The company was founded in 1916 as a manufacturer of aircraft engines, which it produced from 1917 to 1918 and again from 1933 to 1945.
Official website: BMW (Global), BMW (USA)

Trending content


Back
Top