No announcement yet.

Art Ad Proportions

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Art Ad Proportions

    I decided to start a new thread "inspired" by the Ludwig thread ads instead of clogging it up with off-topic comments, which remain yet to be seen. Anyhow, I noticed in the ads presented and others I've seen that the cars are drawn to look longer, lower and wider than they actually are. The '64 ad is particularly noticeable. It really looks much better proportionally than the car really was. The 1964 sales brochure employed this method. Brook Stevens was an advocate of this in many of his Lark/Cruiser drawings. Take a look at the painting of his 1966(?) Cruiser proposal with the full length concave tail light. It's beautiful, long, low and wide, almost Chrysler-like, a look that I don't believe could have been achieved using the old body shell. It was a visual trick of the artist. Even that '55(?) profile ad makes it look more like a Dodge or Plymouth in proportion. Studebaker was not the only one using this glamour trick. I have many "art" ads from the 60's that employ this trick; GM, Ford, Chrysler and Rambler. These ads were really quit beautiful. I don't think they were meant to be deceptive; they were merely more artistic. But why couldn't the designers come up with this better look? Was it a matter of engineering or cost? I don't understand why that would be especially when starting with a completely new design. I guess I answered my own question where Studebaker was concerned! I like '64 Cruiser/Daytona but think they would have looked better if they looked more like the drawn renditions in proportion. Just my thoughts.

  • #2
    This concept is also VERY obvious in the 1958 Ads including the Major Newspaper "INSERT" put out in a Sunday Large Newspaper by ALL the Major Newspapers.

    That year, they REALLY were promoting the LONGER, Lower look, ala '57 & on MoPar.

    This is the one that incorporates ALL THREE of Studebaker, Packard, Mercedes Sales Corp. Car lines.
    Second Generation Stude Driver,
    Proud '54 Starliner Owner


    • #3
      I believe the commercial renderings from all manufacturers art departments or those farmed out to advertising agencies going back into the thirties were embellishments of the product offerings. These illustrations were, after all, as the artists saw them. If these renderings made the product look even better than they actually were in person what manufacturer would complain? Showroom traffic was the desired result. Not much has changed today. Look at the extent car commercials go to to embellish their products. Dreamy sequences, tires spinning, autos drifting around curves, anything to get you to the showroom. The only difference is the medium.


      • #4
        As far as designers/stylists not making Studebakers closer to the artists' drawings, two major items were the use of the same basic body shell from 1953 through 1966 and the factory's restriction on track width.
        Gary L.
        Wappinger, NY

        SDC member since 1968
        Studebaker enthusiast much longer


        • #5
          Ads from the twenties and thirties are particularly noticeable.
          "All attempts to 'rise above the issue' are simply an excuse to avoid it profitably." --Dick Gregory

          Brad Johnson, SDC since 1975, ASC since 1990
          Pine Grove Mills, Pa.
          sigpic'33 Rockne 10, '51 Commander Starlight, '53 Commander Starlight "Désirée"