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.
I like brutalist buildings, but I do not like brutalist cars. We already have plenty of brutalism in every single goddamn SUV on the road. Weight and permanence is something I want in a house- not in something I sling around a roundabout.
I’m a big Jag fan and I really like this concept. I think it pulls off aggressive and sleak. I think it fits into an evolution of Jag styling language. Not everyone likes that evolution, but I love it.
The Bentley? Yeesh. “Hey, let’s do this big brutality, maybe Bentley-ish thing up front but then shock everyone with a sudden transition to an everyday crossover ass end. That rear in profile reminds me of that awful looking Honda sedan / hatchback / crossover thing. Blech.
And the cyber truck? Just keeps getting uglier every time I see one in person.
“Ow, she’s a brick house”
– The Commodores
I actually like the new Jaguar design language. It’s bold, has massive presence and is quite handsome and has to be far better than anything Jag has done in the last thirty+ years, which obviously has not been working.
I recall reading a critique this week by Frank Stephenson (I think, but I cannot seem to find the article), and he was pretty scathing, describing it as a first-year design student project. Almost like a starting point or a ‘blank’ you might have before adding any kind of detail or surfacing. That seems harsh, and if it was Frank, I feel his designs lean heavily on tradition, precedent and sometimes out-and-out retro. I think the basic surfacing is its strength, just look at all the fussiness on new cars like Hondas, Audis or Mercedes. I think the whole point of the design is its ruthless simplicity.
I see why people are making comparisons between the Bentley and Jag, but I don’t think they are that similar. If you want to label this a new design direction or language, I certainly wouldn’t lump the Cybertruck into it, which seems to be the abandonment of design. Musk wanted to simplify the number of panels and use a material that doesn’t play well with radial curves or intricate surfacing. Its crappy look came out of engineering necessity more than any actual design intent to make it look awkward and ugly.
Sorry, but none of these will be credited with the start of Automotive Brutalism movement – not even the Cybertruck. That honor goes to the Chevrolet Silverado 3500.
The ideal Jaguar is the XJS and I will not be taking any questions.
V12, obviously.
This is exactly what someone who makes their living as a Jag mechanic would say…
Only Westerners would look at these designs and call them brutalist, which actually refers to “showcasing the bare materials and structural design”. Do any of these three designs concretely (shoot me.) show the bare materials and structural design? No, but they have some semblance of a tie to a thing that we don’t like, so it’s called Brutalist.
It’s not. It’s Art Deco and streamliner shit (save the Cyber Truck, which I’ll get to in a second) from the 1930s. To quote Lewin Day, “We’re talking” your Empire State Buildings, speed-record airplanes and fastest locomotives of the day. Which makes perfect sense: cars have always had some reference to the fastest other modes of transport in the day (see aircraft in the 50s and you can see the P-38 in a lot of roadster design).
The reason that matters is that when you look at these two cars, what you see are skyscrapers lumbering around. You’re seeing the cutoff top of the Chrysler Building on wheels. That’s why it’s discomfiting.
So, in a universe where:
You get a Jaguar that looks like a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macchi_M.C.72 and a Bentley that looks like a streamliner with the roof chopped.
Getting back to the Cyber Truck, it’s not brutalist either. Brutalism requires the innards to be shown and highlighted. It’s merely a wedge stretched over a pickup body, with the necessary sacrifices that entails.
If you really want to talk about these cars, you need to have the right references to architecture and art to do so. Otherwise, the whole argument falls apart.