Today I finally got to see Jaguar’s controversial concept car, the Type 00, in the metal-flesh, and it was, if nothing else, interesting. I think the car’s odd, Autobrutalist aesthetic works better when seen in person than in pictures, though I’m still not exactly sure what I think of it. The bold blue color was doing a lot of heavy lifting, too.
Just a four-or-so hour drive north of here, in Crewe, another concept was shown to some select journalists by Bentley (but not me; I guess Bentley does background checks, and, for the record, that guy from the liquor store is a liar) and that concept, the EXP 15, seems perhaps oddly similar to the Jaguar Type 00.
Do these two cars suggest that a new automotive design trend, which we may as well keep calling Autobrutalism, is starting? Is two enough to be a trend, or do we have time to nip this shit in the bud? Also, do we count the Cybertruck in this category?
I do think we should count the Cybertruck here, if only because then it’s three cars, and three I can definitely say is a trend,
Just in case you forgot about/blocked from your memory the Jaguar Type 00 concept, you can see it here as automotive designer Adrian Clarke and I scrutinize the car:
View this post on Instagram
The Jag has a striking quality in person, and certainly commands attention, though as I said, I’m still not sure how I feel about it. It’s not what I would call beautiful, or elegant or sleek or any of the other adjectives I’ve thought for classic Jaguars. That may be fine, if it’s bringing something else to the table, but at the moment I’m not sure if it’s bringing something novel and delicious or a cake made with pumice and chunks of lead, all covered in saffron.
The new Bentley concept is interesting for a few reasons, not the least of it is how it was teased just last week with this video:
…right before Goodwood, where you’d think they’d be actually showing it. But they didn’t; instead they invited a few journalists to see it at their headquarters, released some pictures, and that’s it. Why isn’t it at their huge booth at Goodwood? One Bentley rep told us it’s on a boat to America, which it really does not seem to be. What’s going on here?
The Bentley EXP 15 concept shares a lot of common general traits with the Jag, the slab-like, mostly unadorned sides, the bulky, blunt proportions and considerable sense of mass, the strange packaging, the expensive materials, use of repeating simple patterns for detailing that replaces areas that would formerly have had elements like a more traditional grille, gigantic wheels and tires, and so on.
The whole thing seems to exude a sense of wealth, but in a sort of aloof and mistrustful way. It’s a vault, and that feeling is further emphasized by the very luxurious interior:
The packaging is novel, a three-door (one suicide door on the passenger side), three seat, along with a sort of tailgate there with seats on it, which I’m not sure you count as seats. I do like the odd little lantern between the rear seats, and, of course, the massive amount of room Bentley has devoted to your dachshund needs:
I think that dog bed pops up from the floor? That must be a very important dog.
This ornate interior is encapsulated and hidden from the outside world by that imposing exterior, and I think this is approaching one of the crucial tenants of Autobrutalism: a protective, mistrustful quality.
Luxury cars have always sought to telegraph and broadcast the ideas of wealth and privilege, but in doing so they used to also at least try to give something back to the world by being lovely things to look at.
Take the Jaguar Mark X from 1961-1970; this car absolutely projected ideas of money and power and taste and an idea that the people inside were, well, better than you, but at least they were incredible to watch gliding down the streets.
You’d see these drive past, and you’d be momentarily in awe of the graceful look, the impossibly wide proportions, and even as the chauffeur callously drove it over your foot, you’d feel a bit enriched by the whole experience, because it’s just such an ethereal, lovely machine.
Then security guards would drag you away before the people inside had to look at you, you filthy peasant.
But the Autobrutalist cars seem loathe to actually give anything back to the world, aesthetically. I think they were inspired by genuine artworks like Joey Ruiter’s Consumer Car:
…or Rem Koolhaus’ (not the architect, but related) Lo Res Car, shown here by our pal Doug:
…so I think the initial concepts and visual vocabulary came from some quite interesting sources, but I feel like the message of them has been distilled down to some pretty unpleasant qualities. All of these recent Autobrutalist designs feel like machines whose primary goals are to be imposing and quietly menacing, suggesting power and wealth but in a sort of paranoid way, fearful of the world around them.
The whole Cybertruck notion of being “apocalypse proof” feeds into this idea completely. If we consider the Cybertruck as the first production Autobrutalist car/truck, then I think we have to take this whole paranoid, panic-room-on-wheels idea as core to the Autobrutalist ethos.
And, of course, from there, we have to ask ourselves, do we want this? Do we want luxury cars to become these slab-sided cocoons of decadence that shield the fancy people inside from everything around them? Do we want cars that just take and hoarde and don’t give anything back to the visual world other than a strange sense of dread?
I’m not sure I want that. But I also don’t think anyone who will buy cars like these cares.
For me, these fit with the emergence of what’s been called the “attention economy.” A system where value primarily derives from people paying their attention. It’s a natural consequence of our internet enabled, social media era.
The whole point is things that stand out, good or bad, and subtly is not valuable. While we usually tag the Cybertruck, the Corvette C8 for instance isn’t that different in ethos.
I think some folks are missing the audience. With the exception of maybe the Bentley, these are targeting aspirational wealth. The McMansion in the gated community crowd. The people putting up “private road” signs on public streets. The people with actual wealth have no need for such shenanigans (and indeed probably drive a restomod, a truck, or an Outback, when they do drive).
In that lens, the trend will take off. The aspirationally wealthy are showing they repeatedly seek isolationism and “protecting” their property and wellbeing against “them”. This seems just an extension into cars of what is already happening.
The message that the rich are sending to the rest of us has transitioned from “We’re better than you.” to “We’re afraid of you.” The resemblance of these vehicles to a rolling bunker or pillbox is not coincidental.
There’s a small demographic that will want these designs but most people dislike brutalist designs. These are for shock but I would surprised if Bentley adopts this styling, Jaguar might initially but it won’t sell.
The clean simple lines of Sacco and Giugiaro were similar and yet popular because they were never brutal and I think that’s the direction that cars will start going back to.
At the time when the Mark X was in production Britain’s urban workers were being moved into newly constructed Brutalist housing. A combination of poor construction, resource starvation and, admittedly, flawed design helped give those estates bad reputations over the following decades. But, as with all such trends as they age (ghastly overdone Victorians become charming and humane; mid-century trends whose regard evolved from ultramodern to ultra-tacky to appreciation of its vibrancy), there’s been a reappraisal of Brutalism. The middle classes now fight to get at least some of the council estates listed and protected. And while the poor are doubling-up (if they’re lucky) in private accommodation and the lower-middle end up in one of the former Prince of Wales’s Ye Merrie Olde Newe Townes with a mortgage that probably won’t fully amortize until that architectural movement cycles through praise, derision and revisionism, the rich can avail themselves of the kind of monumentalism that’s no longer the province of collective action and no longer celebrates ordinary people.
A Brutalism, de-poored and repurposed into the kind of bunkers it was initially criticized for resembling in the first place, makes perfect sense for an aesthetic to be used by the powerful to convey their imposition of power. So why not make such a statement with one’s car? Indeed, why shouldn’t Mercedes-Benz follow Jaguar and Bentley with a Maybach-Germania edition inspired by Albert Speer’s vision of a victorious Berlin?
How is the 300k EV caddy not at the top of the list? Literally the car that started this trend.
The Cybertruck is unabashedly cruel and crude, just needs razor wire to complete the vibe. These two (platform share?) are not nearly as offensive, but certainly not giving off warm fuzzies.
https://genius.com/The-beatles-revolution-lyrics
Luxury cars and supercars used to give a feeling of vicarious joy to us plebs derived from their beauty and promise of potential performance or ethereal presence. Now they just say “F### off”.
Jason, you and the commenters are hitting it. First, I thought, it’ll scare those peasants. But then I understood, from inside that thing you won’t even see them.
It’s an aesthetic distillation of the values of their clientele. They’ve recognized that the ultra wealthy wendigos fear the peasants they exploit, yet instead of changing course on their actions, they double down and choose separation and protection while projecting an intimidating dominance in the hopes of avoiding consequences. But, like the perceived superiority of these creatures, the promise of security is mere theater—the vehicles aren’t armored, so all they do is stand out as easier targets. These things are like peacock-feathered armadillos.
Eat the rich? These are the vehicles (I will not call them cars) of Bond supervillains. Which seems to be aim of the .001% who have most everything. Jaguar/Bentley? Who gives a fock, those vehicles may as well be made of concrete. And the cyberpuke? One passed me on freeway and the laughter from surrounding cars was palpable. It is a punchline
It can’t be stopped.
Villains no longer need to hide, and now their vehicles can reflect that.
Gru-mobiles all. They’re despicable.
I can imagine two of these puling up to a stoplight. The gentleman in the back seat of the first silently types a secure message to the other on his touchpad.
The man in the second car replies in kind “But of course” as a robotic arm delivers a jar of fancy dijon mustard to a now visible compartment on the first car.
Both continue on their way to their lairs in silence, a smirk on their faces, slowly stroking the white cats in their laps.
They would just send the other person an NFT of mustard.
The brutalist design reflects the fact that cars are no longer about a connection with humans. They are platforms for technology and fashion. This was true of the most recent series of BMWs as well.
Cars that want to drive themselves, automatic climate control, have touch controls, and swaddle passengers in a cocoon of distracting screens and streamed entertainment are about isolating the people inside from the natural world. Older cars were often about balancing comfort with a connection to the road and the thrill of moving through space.
Older car designs used inspiration from nature that moved with sweeping lines and forms that reflected living creatures. They had “haunches” and “faces” and looked “muscular.” New cars are designed to look like the bunkers they are.
Much like brutalist buildings themselves
In a much more innocent way the Dodge Citadel and the Buick Enclave aspire to that with their names. Odd to name your transportation device after a structure rooted to the ground.
When phrased like that, I now understand how to explain why I hate modern Bentleys, Rolls, and most other luxury cars. Even if I could afford one I still wouldn’t have one. So thanks for that.
So, what I’m seeing is that Nissan was ~25 years ahead of the game? Impressive.
https://cdn.motor1.com/images/mgl/0bxw3/s3/2001-nissan-skyline-gt-r-concept.webp
I take your point but that Nissan is too pretty to be lumped with these slabs.
The brand (along with it’s user base) is dying off. Trying something to separate itself from the pack seems like a last ditch effort and from an awareness perspective it’s working. It’s so polarizing as to get people talking about it.
The fact that there is another following the style tells me they’re equally desperate or that the type 00 really resonates with more of the market than the old designs.
For the cybertruck? I dunno. Teslas are cool but I would be embarrassed to drive a cybertruck and my daily is a minivan. .
Chariots of the gods then? There was a time when if you saw a Ferrari (or other Italian supercar) on the road one felt a pang of awe at such a beautiful artifact of humanity. You didn’t automatically despise the driver wrt to the cost, in fact you were excited that someone had the taste and skill and money to buy and drive it. These things referenced in the article just bring revulsion.
It cannot be stopped.
Villains no longer need to pretend to be anything else and they need their cars to reflect that.