Are Ian Callums Design's Naturally Polarizing?

Poll: XF Stud or Dud?
Poll answer first then your response to the essay please.

It seems ironic that over the past week I have experienced emotions from the high of highs reading comments about the new XF, to low of lows from reading them. It is very reminiscent of my experience around this same time in 2005-2006 when the XK came out.
As many of my posts have pointed out, Callums designs don't always translate we in 2D.

I think this has to do with the subtlety of his design even when the over all design is in your face or striking on some level. The XK, as simple as the curves seem and as straighforward as the design seems to be it continually delights at every new angle from which it's viewed.

I believe the XF is such a car.

Do you think the XF it will look much different in 3D as the XK did? What quality do you think make some cars look fantastic in pictures but not in real life? And why are Callums designs just the reverse?

Jagexpert2 - 8/30/2007 11:16:41 PM

+1 Boost

Stud!

MercBasher - 8/31/2007 11:01:54 AM

-1 Boost

Stud

And if the design is polarizing then this is a good thing, because when you're a small player in the US markets you need to stand out [are you listening Audi A4 designers].

Neverfollow - 8/31/2007 11:56:28 AM

+1 Boost

Polarizing is a good thing otherwise you end up something like a Toyota Camry or a Honda Accord. Mass appeal is good for certain businesses I guess, but luxury marques need to find some way to distinguish themselves from the rest of the crowd. Part of what one is paying for is to have something unique or special. A luxury or exclusive automobile is often a statement about who a person is and what they want the world to think of them. Like art, it's a very personal thing.

There are many mass produced vehicles to choose from for those who don't care about such things. Fortunately for producers of luxury products, there are enough people who are successful enough to indulge themselves in the finer things in life. Those who can afford to take a break from survival mode and step out into the cold cruel world of individuality.

Good art is often like that. When Pablo Picasso was alive, most hated his works. Now they bring hundreds of millions of dollars. The same can be said about Jackson Pollock.

That's why so many bloggers on this site are so passionate about the brands they believe in. They throw out statistics about this and that. It's all kind of a "my dad's better than you dad" kind of thing.

The automobile is unique in that it can be a fashion statement, a resume', a personal ad, and your own personal mode of transportation all rolled up into one.

Will_ - 8/31/2007 1:09:35 PM

+5 Boost

Ian Callum polarizing = good.
Chris Bangle polarizing = bad.

mini22 - 8/31/2007 4:36:48 PM

+1 Boost

You know it's interesting. The XF has been compared to the Lexus GS. It's true it has a similar profile of a coupe but that's about as far as it gets. The XF simply has much finer sophisticated detailing. On the inside it looks a lot more simple. Yet it is elegant. The photos that have been shown show a dark walnut wood that appears cheap. However I've also seen one in maple which looks quite nice. I don't know if I call the design "polarizing". I would call it different then the usual "German" or "Japanese" style especially in the details.I think Jagexpert 2 is correct in the discovery of new details the more you look at the XF. I think that's a good thing. I could never get into the Bangle designs for BMW sedans. I thought the Z4 was interesting on the sides but unattractive on the front. The 6 series was fine until you got to the rear of the car.Then it made no sense.Other then wishing that the headlamps on the XF were slightly more delicate like the concept I think it's a good design and the right move for Jaguar.