Interesting reading here, yes we all have seen a car that is 95% percent there, as in the eye and being traditional, since that is what the HAMB is about, but for one or two little things it missed the mark. We all have different likes/looks that draw us in, whether they are right or wrong, they hit the mark for us individualy. I am a hotrod guy but can apreciate a great custom as well. I will see what to me looks like a great looking car, color, chop, wheels/caps and mild other mods that all seem to work in my eye, but the car gets ripped apart by some here? Maybe that's why I dont build a custom, I must not get it. Certain things just dont work for me and my eye, here are two examples. The green packard that Highlander posted, the car has a nice look, in fact it's a beauiful car, but the grille takes away from it. The grille by itself is beautiful, but the tight sharp lines dont go with the round flowing lines of the rest of the car. This same thing is going on with the 67 Nova, sharp square rear fenders and tailights and round front fenders? To defend my view, take the gold 32 coupe posted here, sharpen all the edges of the grille shell and tell me it would look better? Of course, all this is just one persons view/opinion. Fred, aside from a couple things, I like your first version better, but it's still a great looking ride in current form.
I know this coupe and to me it is perfect. From the old five spokes, to the stock height top, old battered paint, early hi-po SBC and nice rubber rake I would to nothing to it if it was mine.
“Some people have such good taste they can't enjoy anything.” ― Marty Rubin As witty as that is, it sounds like something someone would say, after they over heard gossip ridiculing their work. boo hoo I think the guys who build the cars that grab us, treat the automobile as art and not just a means of transportation. They follow the rules of form and function, instead of fighting them. Remember when you were young and dressed yourself for the very first time. You looked in the closet, picked out a shirt and pair of pants. Threw everything on and headed for the door. Only to have your mom grab you and say, 'You're not going out dressed like that!" Gee, why can't a plaid shirt go with striped pants? "Because you'll look like a clown. That's why!" Maybe cars that seem "off", were built by the guys who, when they were kids, were in a hurry and made it out the door. I think the guys who always seem to capture the 'look", are the guys who are doing research, observing and taking their time. They know the basic rules of design and how far they can be stretched. That's if they stretch them at all. They take the time to try 3 different sets of tires. They've got a stack of magazines and pictures stuck everywhere. They're having fun, but it's not a game. ALMOST and GOOD ENOUGH will never be PERFECT or RIGHT. Discipline.
117harv, that Packard would be just a big old cabriolet without the radiator shell that told the world what it was. In person, in different colors, you'd have to trust me that it works. The sharp lines on the flat blend right into the hood and disappear about 6" from the back edge. The headlight and parking light lenses share the cathedral design as well in their tops and bezels. Yes, even the glass in the lights. The taillights also have a small cathedral top on them as well as the center of the instrument panel with or without a radio. I'm not as charged up about the green one as I am this one, but look at the light bezels and hood: This would have been a good example to place below the green one. At the low angle this pic was taken, look at that reveal again from the back of the door to about the middle of the top. You can really see what had to be done to give the "eye" a clean flowing line from the spear on the hood to the end of the body. I'm biased toward these cars in nearly every version of coachwork they were offered in. Try as they may, those who've made hot rods out of them will never achieve the balance they were born with. Enjoy...
In my opinion Ryan Reed and Cole Foster have it. I am yet to see a car or bike built by those guys that doesn't look good.
For me someone who has the "Eye" in the world of Kustoms is Rick Dore. The 1940 Pontiac, "Decadence" that he took to the next level is a prime example. This is one of many of his award winning ground breaking builds over the years.
Here's a HRM article by Gray Baskerville in which he, Boyd Coddington, and Chip Foose discuss theme, wheels & tires, stance and other esthetics topics. They use the Boydster as an example, but their ideas apply equally to traditional hot rods as well. http://www.hotrod.com/featuredvehicles/43578_1932_ford_boydster/
I just noticed this thread, and it's a subject that's pretty close to me. I have a practiced eye, and I'm generally comfortable discussing matters of appearance and design. There was a thread four years ago called "what makes a beautiful roadster?" [http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=444589]. A few of the same folks spoke up, including Ned Ludd, Highlander, and myself. I felt good with what I had to say in posts #48 & 50, in a kind of checklist format. Maybe because of the more specific question "what makes...?", or maybe because of the passage of time and growing senility, I find it more difficult to generalize about The Eye. While most of us (who think about this stuff at all) use self-imposed rules about proportion or balance or contrast, I think that really superior aesthetic judgement defies verbalization. You organize and choose things, and then change and adjust them until they look right, and then AFTER THE FACT you pick the rule you used to explain why you did that. I could make up rules that I would give to somebody else to improve the likelihood of a good outcome, but I would break those rules without hesitation if I saw an opportunity for something more interesting. The point? Just that talking about this stuff is not the same thing as doing it.
This somehow brings to mind Japanese designs of the 70's and 80's where separate elements on their own might have been appealing, but when tossed together created a truly hideous mix of designs. I think that's how the Japanese designers ended up with cars that often looked like an atomic cockroach. Custom cars often end up like this - lots of good elements but not a cohesive design.
Good Lord, Tony. Mr. Miller beat me to it. A lot of the responses here are very legitimate, but it strikes me as a bunch of engineer types talking about aesthetics. Some basic rules of design are valid, or at least worthy of consideration, but mostly, I love cars that have THE LOOK while breaking standard definition rules. I did see one comment though...."if it LOOKS right, it probably IS" (even THE LOOK is completely subjective, however). The French have the saying, "je ne sais quoi" (had to look up the spelling). Fun to analyze things, sometimes not so much.
Japanese cars in those days were not meant to be looked at from a distance. They were meant to be looked at up close, as when parked in the street. The designers paid more attention to details than the overall effect. You can see the time they spent designing a vent, or a mirror, or an emblem then kind of stuck it on the car. Eventually they learned to stand back and study the overall effect.
Time... take your time. I never did, and on my current build that's all I'm doing. Maybe it's a conflict of interest and not very traditional, but the better I get at 3D CAD and programming, the better my build choices have become. Maybe its the realization that there are at least 3 revisions before a part sees production, and I only have the means to build a car once, so I don't have an option of having "hot rod rev C" I like to think that purpose encompasses both form and function. Put the car before yourself. I think asking the question "what is the car's intended purpose" rather than "what's my intended purpose with the car" is crucial. We are humans, and we are messy. I think what draws us to cars, especially traditional ones, is the chance to carve out a small sliver of life, embodied on 4 wheels, and make it as perfect as possible, because the rest of life is a CF. Maybe the "eye" is being able to take yourself out of the situation and put the needs of the car before yourself...
In my opinion, the two things you brought up are VERY important to the eye. Take, for example, the newbie who's discovered hot rods and he's all fired up to jump in head first. Then, a few months later, the pile of parts or even the whole damn car, end up in the classifieds. "For Sale: Personal Reasons". My thoughts on last comment will probably ruffle some feathers, but WTF. Hot Rods were meant to go FAST. Point A to point B and it better be a straight line. No cup holders, A/C, PWR steering, PWR brakes, MP3 players. When I read a thread about someone trying to fix a squeak in his Hotrod, my first thought is, "BUY A GAWD DAMN HONDA!" If you can hear the squeak over your exhaust, you're driving a 20 year old Cadillac. But my whole purpose of the discussion of the "eye" pertains to the guys, who start with a clapped out body and a dream and follow through with AMAZING results. They spend 1/3 of what most guys do and end up with a show stopper or quarter mile killing machine. Some guys have it, the rest of us are trying to just touch the trailing end of the rocket. Those guys, not only have the "eye", they OWN it. You want an example? Look at ANYTHING coming out of "Rolling Bones". Boyd Coddington. had a HUGE joint full of shit and an army of talent, but NOTHING he built can touch ANY of the stuff connected with "Rolling Bones". It's like, no matter what they put their hands on, you KNOW it's going to come out perfect. THAT, is the "eye".
I think we can learn the "Eye", obviously some will be better than the rest of us. When I read Highlander's post about 'eye-balling' his work: I thought of how good the eye sometimes is. I do a bit of 3d CAD design, and I am always amazed at how close I can get placing holes or parts. Say I need to put three centered holes on a rectangular plate... I just click and slap the holes in...I'll correct the dimension later. If I just trust my eye and try to put them where 'aesthetically' I think they should be...I can get them astonishingly close...say within a 16th on a three foot span -weird; or maybe not... Kelvin
I think we're inclined to have too much respect for the factory. We don't see coachbuilt cars (how that came about is another story) so we have the idea that proper cars are made the way major factories do, with all the implications for concepts like prototype and type and model and model-conformity that go with that. For more light on that, compare how architectural theorist Christopher Alexander uses the word pattern in a completely different way as a foundryman would. In the context of now-prevalent mass production a revision does indeed represent huge amounts of abortive work. But in the context of the building industry, in which I work, revisions happen all the time, both before and during construction, while abortive work is consciously kept to a minimum. It all depends on the sort of technological context it happens in. In fact, from what I've read about well-executed pro rod/custom build projects, they resemble a building construction project far more than they resemble product development for mass production. It's just a different mind-set. If I have to work on someone else's architectural drawings that have been "eyeballed" I come close to throwing monitors about the office! Once that has subsided I usually find myself starting over from scratch, as it'd be faster than trying to fix all the eyeballing. If I'm managing staff I insist on their working to four decimals, and then I want to see four zeroes unless there is a good geometrical reason. It is all about revisions, because they are going to happen, and then I need to be able to understand the difference between the original intent and the revised intent, and to communicate that to someone who is going to execute the work in real life. And in industries where tolerances are implicit (because stated tolerances make no sense at that scale) "eyeballed" dimensions tend to imply unrealistically tight tolerances which are for that reason ignored. I can police a wall dimensioned 2400mm on site with a tape measure, because everyone has a feel for a reasonable tolerance; I can't police a dimension of 2398.643mm. But be that as it may To me the mark of good design thinking is to have concept sense and mathematical rigour at the same time. You want an "inspired" response to an existing situation that is thoroughly understood. I've done work for designers who do "loose" concept sketches for building designs, where the concept revolves around stairways which end up bearing no relation to the actual fall of the land I get out of a land survey. The right thing there is to chuck the concept and start thinking from scratch. Too often the concept gets beaten into the site contours with a big hammer, and it shows in a clumsy, irrational end result.
I was a photographer / artist in one of my former lives, and "the eye" was always with the observer, not the observed. A photog or artist said to have a "good eye" was thought to have a better than average way of seeing and presenting the subject / scene / event, etc. IMHO, in this case this definition is bass-ackwards. The photog / artist doing the work has "the eye" and the subject has / gets it's "look" from it's creator. Gary
I like to think that "the eye" can be a personal and subjective thing that may be perceived in various ways by different people. There is a good deal of artistic ability present in the ability of "the eye". My experience as a welder-fabricator is that many times a good tradesman in the metal trades has that artistic "eye". It involves the ability to "see" something in 3D before you actually build it along with the ability to build something without any pictures, or blueprints. I do a lot of my work that way and like to think that sometimes I get it right. (I hope) Larry
From my perspective you can learn from watching creative people but the true inovators and creators of art are born with it. My daughter ran around with a neat bunch of kids in high school, one boy in particular had the "Eye" . One night they were at my house when they were freshmen They started singing at the dining room table , that kid song where there is a hole at the bottom of the sea and every verse you add something random to what is in the hole. That boy would draw every item they came up with as fast as they sang it , he had like 17 pages when the song was done and all of it look incredible. Cars, elephants , goats, houses, people setting at the table. It is humbling to me, probably cause I topped out at stick men.
This is not to argue your point, only to add to it... I think the details are part of "the eye". When small parts, be it brackets, knobs, linkage, plumbing etc, look like it could have been OEM, yet it is only for one car, one application... this is what I think pushes a car to the next level. From "right" to "perfect". Many times, at least in my industry, it's the part with the least amount of bends, holes, milling or turning operations, etc. that sees production (for obvious reasons). Consequently, these minimalist parts that solve the problem at hand tend to be the most aesthetically pleasing. They avoid being overly drab because there are still aesthetic standards demanded by the buyer and end consumer. Lets take for example a mounting tab for a panhard bar. The following examples and numbers are arbitrary, and only to show my thought process. 4% are hacks and would build the tab in single shear 70% get it and will make the tab double shear 20% will build the tabs in double shear and wrap them to connect them and add strength 1%... lets say you had Big Three resources... these tabs are hard tooled in a 100 ton press and have a tipped flange running the full perimeter of the part. The large radius of the bend and rounded corner of the form is inherent to the hard tool process, yet its pleasing. If we saw something like this on a one off build, I think we would all be impressed and look at the part with "how did he do that" admiration... Back to work. The boss is here...
The eye develops over time. See enough stuff, do enough stuff.. does it look like ass or does it look like it grew there? Cars are part art form for most of us. Add that little detail that ties it all together and it gives it the wow factor. I do a lot of work in CAD too and it gives me a good sense of proportion. When in doubt, print it out 1:1 and see how it looks. I'm also cursed with being able to tell if things are off a gnat's ass... houses that have a crooked door or window, un-parallel machined surfaces jump right out at me. Cars with bad alignment, body lines askew.. I see it all.
I love threads like this, discussing an overarching idea rather than the aesthetics of one car. I believe people can develop an "EYE" over time. I started in middle school, drawing things like grille shells and pinstriping designs symmetrically. I quickly found out it was obviously something I needed to work on. Over time, things get better, and better, and better... After awhile it isn't something you think about, but your Eye has moved onto other things, like design flow and continuity. Everyone has an eye, but the big question is, "For what?"
The Jalopy Journal
