That's largely because there were few schools where a prospective industrial designer could receive training, and the training itself was probably somewhat different. Almost certainly the basics regarding perspective were taught, but beyond that, it's hard to say what students learned regarding making renderings.
Also, many early stylists were not trained in industrial design or transportation design (a later field). Some had architectural training. Others might have had art school backgrounds. Still others had no formal training at all. Future vice president of Design for General Motors, Bill Mitchell, attended Carnegie Institute of Technology (Pittsburgh) and the Art Students League in New York City, but probably little of this compares with today's training.
Most drawings and renderings churned out by car stylists depict ideas regarding general shapes and various details such as grille designs -- not what might be an actual production car. This is especially true for "advanced design" studios that from the 1950s on served as "playpens" for stylists fresh out of school. They were allowed to generate wild concepts while being observed by experienced styling hands given the task of selecting those with the potential to be moved to "production" studios where serious designing was done. But even in production studios a certain amount of "blue sky" drawing happened.
Most of the images below are distorted in one way or another. No seriously real car could actually look like what was depicted. If the purpose was to suggest a new grille design or fenderline, that way okay. But experienced, executive stylists needed to apply some mental design "windage" to such renderings so as to visualize how a production car with such features might look. For example, the Bill Mitchell drawings shown below are grossly exaggerated. Yet Mitchell was already head of Cadillac styling by 1936, so presumably he already could figure out how to extrapolate from his drawings to how the designs might work (or not) on a future production Cadillac.
The images below are of drawings made from 1936 to around the late 1940s -- much of the dating is my guesswork.
Perhaps done just before he took over Cadillac styling. The vertical elements on the catwalks are suggestive of 1940-vintage LaSalles, Cadillac's "companion" brand.
Another extreme perspective view. This proposed Cadillac features the eggcrate grille feature that appeared on 1941 models. Note the hooded headlights are mounted close to the hood, not towards the edges of the fenders. This was in keeping with GM practice until 1941-1942. The airplane in the background is slightly old-fashioned due to having spatted, non-retractable landing gear.
There is a two-segment wraparound windshield, and the headlight assemblies transition to body shaping around the cowling. The high, narrow hood seems better suited for housing inline eight cylinder motors rather than Cadillac's actual V-8s and V-16s of 1938.
I can't make out the signature. The perspective and body shapes are incorrect for an actual car.
The after part of the body seems twisted towards the viewer, though the rear wheel seems correctly drawn -- though probably too far to the rear. Another early example of a panoramic windshield.
A well-known rendering of its day. The car itself has an impractical rear. And the drawing of the rear fender, like in the Chika drawing above, shows some twisting towards the viewer so as to emphasize the car's profile shape rather than how it actually might look from the viewer's angle.
Ross later was head of Oldsmobile styling, but died before age 50, The highly rounded shape seen here is typical of many GM styling renderings in the mid-1940s. The WAC driving the car is not positioned for actual driving -- Ross made the car too low to house the motor and passengers.
Around the late 1930s and into the mid-'40s streamlined cars were expected to have covered wheelwells, integral, body-side fenders, and large chrome elements along the lower body edge. The chrome details at the rear look rather lethal.
This drawing seems particularly amateurish, thought Griffith is reported to have worked for GM.
Extreme perspective again, but Foster was concerned with the integral grill-bumper design, so perspective didn't matter much.
No comments:
Post a Comment