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.
Pedestrian safety be damned!
Plebs should drive their own pillbox if they want to be safe.
They should be lucky I didn’t order my Bentley with an egg crate in the center console, otherwise I’d throw eggs at the ones in my way in the crosswalk.
/s
Is it possible for one of the design writers of The Autopian to sketch up a mass-market, “economy car” version of this? Maybe a mailbox on wheels?
I despise this design zeitgeist with a passion.
Other examples could include the Honda 0 Series Saloon and the Nissan Hyper Force. These vehicles look like they would fit right in with the dystopian worlds presented in sci fi films of the 1970s-1990s such as Blade Runner, Total Recall, The Running Man, and Soylent Green.
At a time when we need to focus on aero drag reduction to reduce battery costs/mass in order to make long-range EVs affordable, more efficient, and less harmful to the environment, the industry goes in the opposite direction all in the name of perpetuating some new design language that no one outside of the ruling class members running the industry asked for(albeit, of the examples in this article plus the two I mentioned, the Honda supposedly is low drag).
It is clear that inexpensive EVs for the masses, at least the bottom 80% of the population currently priced out of new cars altogether, aren’t seriously on the table in the USA. With proprietary software/tools, lack of reparability, tech/feature-creep, and intentionally-built-in shelf life, all of which will make the used market untenable in the coming decades, coupled with keeping the inexpensive Chinese EVs out of the USA, it appears that the intent is to eventually get the bottom 80% of the population priced out of private car ownership altogether, while simultaneously offering no viable/affordable/practical individual transport alternatives to the private car.
I’m genuinely confused by the door-seating arrangement in that Bentley; two doors on the passenger side (one for the dachshund, one for the rear seat passenger, which makes sense) but if there’s no suicide door on the other side, how the heck do you get into the seat behind the driver?
No self respecting oligarch is going to enter from the passenger side and scootch on over the “transmission tunnel”, nor are they going to squeeze in through the gap if chauffeur seat folds forward.
This is clearly a two passenger vehicle, but only if one passenger sits in the dog bed.
I don’t have anything to say about the design of these things, but I scrolled through just to make sure someone else noticed this.
You can’t even scooch, there’s a big ol center console and lantern in the way. If anything they have the doors backward for this use case. The rear passengers should have full doors, and the chauffeur should be forced to clamber in through a little half door and over the Dachshund bed.
So what you’re saying is these designs are the vehicular equivalent of that rich couple standing outside their faux columned palace in the St. Louis area (if I remember correctly) brandishing weapons to scare the “others” away?
Yeah, kill this movement with fire.
The Bentley design is successful in one way: it makes me find the Jag attractive.
The front end on the Bentley looks like someone in charge directed the designers to start with the Jag, then make it look like someone stuffed a furnace from a 1900s tenement up front.
It’s an awful lot of grille for…not being a grille. Emphasis on awful.
McBrutalism to go along with their McMansion.
I don’t think the execution is very good and the brutalist design elements are cranked a little too high, but if this marks a shift away from hilariously overdesigned fascias, lines that follow the path of a stumbling drunk, and “oops all grille” then I’ll welcome it with not very open arms (I don’t need to be cut by those sharp edges 🙂 )
Time for Lincoln to dust off the 1996 Sentinel Concept
(But this time less glass)
When I look at these three vehicles, I see two of them as being designed with care and purpose–both their forms, colors, and choice of materials are meant to evoke a positive emotional response from both the buyers and the general public. In this sense, then, I don’t think either the Jaguar or the Bentley are true examples of Brutalism.
The Cybertruck, on the other hand, with its choice of material, minimalist interior and flat angular exterior panels, its proportions, and its “form fits function” aesthetic is the only true Brutalist design of the three.
I’d like to see a joint design analysis of all three from @adrianfclarke.
“form fits function” aesthetic
Does it though?
Well, I think that was the intent–see my comment below–but they may have misunderstood what the important functions are. But the fact that it’s not very functional as a truck doesn’t necessarily indicate that design philosophy wasn’t a Brutalist approach. They may have just fucked up in the implementation.
I don’t think Mies van der Rohe would agree.
I’ll grant that the form fits the function if the function is “identify the driver as a disreputable edgelord entirely too comfortable with Nazis” but I don’t think that’s what Musk was intending.
I disagree, in that I think the Cyber design is also focusing on form before function, just a different form. An antiquated one from the dawn of video games, just like the Cybertruck wordmark is a severely dated style from the ¿90s. If function came first, the bed would be more accessible, it would never have had the original wheel covers that wore out the tires, it would not have body panels of a material that requires great care, it would not have a ridiculous door opening system in order to forego handles. And that’s before getting to the interior with its rectangular yoke, and dearth of physical controls.
I think a brutalist truck putting function before form would look more like the Bollinger designs that were dropped.
Remember, the Cybertruck was originally supposed to be made as a very thick (1/8″?) stainless steel monocoque, hence the flat angular panels, since SS is hard to form, especially when thick. (As I recall, it was also meant to be bullet proof). So the aesthetic design is a result of the limits of the (originally) chosen material. So I think it really is the most “form fits function” design.
If form followed function, it would be more rectangular and less of the forced triangles. Particularly in the bed area, and having a roof that didn’t impinge on rear seat passengers. It would have door handles, even if they were the somewhat problematic standard Tesla ones.
What vehicles put function first? The original army Jeeps. The original Land Rovers. Heck, Unimogs. Those were built to do a thing, not to represent a thing.
It’s possible that the triangular design was an attempt to make it more aerodynamic, tho to be honest, I don’t know what the Cd is. In any case, I’m not arguing that it’s pure “form follows function” like (some) Brutalist architecture; only that it’s moreso than the other designs. And I stand by my argument that the acres of flat planes and straight creases are the result of the original planned construction method as I said above. In any case, I’m ready to move on from this discussion. If you need to have the last word, have at it.
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.
Extreme Virtue Signaling
In this case in a “stars on thars” I’m rich bitch kind of way
Not a car for those with esthetic tastes
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.
You can add Hummers and Escalades to that equation, along with the Celestiq.
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.
Also, while the Jag is pulling up to the curb drawing all the attention, the rich guy is popping into the building’s garage in a Smart Car with tinted windows.
These are all catering to the same fearful urges that gave us Trump and other right wing fascists. Perceived safety uber alles, regardless of the shitty consequences for others who are – obviously – far less important than oneself. And performative aggression to ward off perceived predators. It’s all lizard brain – I hate it.
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?
That sort of abomination would make Hitler’s Mercedes 770K Grosser very appealing in contrast.
Well put.
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”.
I’m surprised Bentley didn’t come up with a design that docks with the fuselage of a Gulfstream to become the passenger compartment.
This one could dock with an F117.
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.
How does the Armada fit in?
I’ve thought about that, maybe behind one at a stoplight. I don’t speak Spanish, and for the purity of this reply, I’m not looking it up, but I assume it means “armed?” OK, I looked. Armada means navy, but I’m right that armado means armed. So I believe if my own gender were feminine, and I had a weapon, I could be armada.
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.
Very well stated. Old cars have “soul.” These do not. Now, get off my lawn!
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.