The automotive media tend to “normalize” even pretty weird styling trends. One result is that robust critiques often don’t get much visibility until after a trend is fading away. I thus found it refreshing to see Sajeev Mehta critique the “crying-eyes” look. That refers to front and rear fascias which have downward streaks that can remind one of tears.
As a case in point, Mehta (2022) described the fake portals that jut out below the taillights of the Toyota Camry SE/SXE as looking like “mascara stains.” This is just one manifestation of how “exaggeration is the norm” in contemporary automotive styling, he argued.
Mehta (2022) did not completely dismiss the crying-eyes look. “I just wish the mascara stain was detached from the taillights and handled a bit more like the W205 C-Class,” he lamented.
On the other hand, Mehta (2022) liked the way Cadillac has given the front end of its recent models a functional vertical light bar that makes “the leading edge stand out much like the chrome trim of the slab-sided 1961–69 Lincoln Continental.”
Whatever happened to practical considerations?
I may be showing my age, but I’m less enthusiastic about vertical slashes and scoops. The main problem is that they often reach down to what used to be bumper level — and include lighting that could get easily damaged.
This brings us back to a previous discussion about how contemporary automobiles lack basic bumper protection. Jason Torchinsky (2018) went as far as to argue that “the bumper, as it once was known, is effectively gone.” This is doubly problematic because today’s vehicles often have an extensive number of sensors and cameras located near bumper level.
Design trends tend to go in cycles, so I hope that at some point the pendulum swings back toward greater functionality. If automakers aren’t careful, they may find that the government once again steps in with stricter bumper regulations. A parking lot fender bender shouldn’t cost thousands of dollars to repair.
Also see ‘Yes, but WHY do today’s automobiles look so similar?’
It would also be great to see more diversity in design approaches. If vertical scoops are going to be used purely for decoration, then how about moderating their usage so that automobiles stop looking so similar to each other?
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Mehta, Sajeev; 2022. “Vellum Venom Vignette: These crying eyes of mine.” Hagerty. Jan. 21.
- Torchinsky, Jason; 2018. “Reminder: Cars Don’t Have Bumpers Anymore and That Sucks.” Jalopnik. Posted November 25; accessed August 30, 2020.
This essay brings to mind the oft told tale of a major auto maker’s design studio in the late ‘90’s or early ‘00’s parking their midsize sedan in a large room with the competition’s midsize sedans all painted the same color and all emblems removed for review by upper management. There was difficulty naming which car was which. All of the cars resembled the same metallic potato.
The root vegetable character of cars was driven at first by aerodynamics to improve fuel economy, then the proportions got increasingly chunky to address crash survival against the monstrous trucks and SUVs that are all the rage. The slots slashes, and grooves in the body and fascias ( not bumpers) are an attempt at individuality carved into the potato. In this mode of design, more attention is given to the lights that stretch across the hood or deck to the greenhouse than the overall form itself.
Luxury cars used to be stately. Sports cars were svelte…think the E Type, or muscular like a Corvette. No more. All are chunky and gimmicky. There are portions of cars that are appealing, the rear of a 2022 Mazda MX5 has the pinched and upswept tail character of a sports car, but it is rare. Most are cartoons.
Ugly, stupid and unremarkable. Nobody with a sense of classic automotive design would ruin a good style with such unnecessary bits and markings, in my opinion.
“Nobody with a sense of classic automotive design would ruin a good style with such unnecessary bits and markings, in my opinion.”
I agree, James. Even at his worst, Bill Mitchell who could trowel on the gingerbread with the best of them, valued proportion and overall shape better than the current generation of transformer-influenced designers. Off the top of my head, it is difficult to think of a contemporary car that has a graceful yet exciting shape combined with great proportions and a face that doesn’t look like it belongs on a monster truck. That said, the original Audi A5 coupe did remind me in some ways of Mitchell’s 1st gen Riviera.
To my mind, the running mascara look is a stylistic dead end, which can’t end soon enough. Good design is simple, and doesn’t need extra adornment, whether it be fifty more pounds of chrome (a la Harley Earl) or a plethora of fake vents (a la Toyota-kun). 🙂
By all means have nicely faceted detailing in the headlamp and taillamp assemblies, but vertical lines running down from them are a detraction. The eye reads them as a visual distraction, a needless vertical bracketing the design and breaking up the coherence of the overall shape. And they’re glaringly obvious on a Camry, which sure doesn’t need vents behind the wheels in any production form!
l would welcome “speed lines” a la 1941 if done tastefully but the crying eye “mascara lines” l hope only last as long as “sore thumb” and “bull’s nuts” tail lights did.