Followers

Tuesday, April 14, 2009

2010 Nissan 370Z: First Official Picture

2010 Nissan 370Z Roadster

2010 Nissan 370Z Roadster

Enlarge Photo


2010 Nissan 370Z Roadster

2010 Nissan 370Z Roadster

Enlarge Photo

In addition to these two early shots, we grabbed some live photos from Nissan's display over at New York's Morrell Wine Bar. We've also got plenty of video of the car from around the web. Nissan isn't doing an official press conference, but the Z roadster and NISMO-tuned coupe will be on the show floor tomorrow.

2010 Nissan 370Z Roadster

2010 Nissan 370Z Roadster

Enlarge Photo
2010 Nissan 370Z Roadster

2010 Nissan 370Z Roadster

Enlarge Photo
2010 Nissan 370Z Roadster

2010 Nissan 370Z Roadster

We all knew that Nissan would be dropping trou on its new NISMO Z and convertible 370Z Roadster at this week's New York Auto Show. What we didn't expect was an early shot of the 370Z in advance of the roadster's show debut.

The important info: the new Z roadster has a fabric folding top, and shares nothing with the Infiniti G37 hardtop convertible. Like the new 2009 Nissan 370Z, it rides on a short-ish 100.4-inch wheelbase and an overall length of 167.2 inches. The drivetrain's shared with the 2009 370Z coupe--a 332-horsepower 3.7-liter V-6 teams up with a seven-speed automatic with paddle shifters or a six-speed manual gearbox that matches engine revs for better shifting. The rear-drive Roadster sports a one-step mechanism that lowers the top at the push of a button. A glass rear window is standard, as are high-intensity discharge headlamps and a wind deflector. Sport brakes are an option, along with Bluetooth, navigation system, XM satellite radio, aluminum pedals and a Bose audio system.

Nissan also showed off its in-house NISMO tuner version of the new 370Z coupe. The NISMO edition sees its power bumped to 350 horsepower, with a six-speed manual the sole transmission. The doors, hood and hatch are made from aluminum to cut weight, and the body wears aero add-ons to distinguish it from the base coupe. A tuned exhaust and a standard limited-slip differential team up with a NISMO-tweaked suspension and 19-inch wheels. Special gauges and red-stitched interior trim are the finishing touches inside the NISMO.

We'll have more from the 2009 New York auto show tomorrow. For more photos, click over to our 2010 Nissan 370Z Roadster page and to the 2009 Nissan 370Z NISMO page.

Original here

The triumph of curves

Christina Hendricks

(AP Photo/Evan Agostini)

It’s taken roughly 15 years, but at long last, after a couple of false alarms, we are officially over skinny. And here is how you can tell: women have started to envy other women, not for their jutting hip bones and the amount of daylight visible between their thighs, but for their soft and shapely bodies. We’re not talking about recognising that hips, thighs and breasts are a normal part of the female package. (We’ve always known that, and it hasn’t stopped us from wanting to look like malnourished girls.) We’re talking about, once again, finding the shapely form desirable. We look at pictures of Daisy Lowe in her leotard and opaque tights and think — yes, that’s what youth should look like: blooming and rounded and bee-stung. We look at Joan in Mad Men, in those curve-packing dresses, and feel the strange sensation that, for the first time in more than a decade, we are seeing the womanly form as God intended it. Up to this point, there have been odd breakthrough moments when we’ve been reminded of the power of shape (Scarlett Johansson’s arrival on the scene, for example), but the novelty always wore off pretty quickly when we were faced with the prospect of fitting into this season’s fashion. For as long as anyone can remember, thin has been the aspirational body type — the one that went hand in hand with success and glamour and money and, above all, looking good in clothes.

Women don’t necessarily want to look as thin as Agyness Deyn (no offence, Agyness), and the fashion industry is waking up to the idea of a proper womanly shape. Look at the fabulous curve-enhancing clothes of Roland Mouret: the global success of the ubiquitous Galaxy dress was partly down to its ability to flatter a fuller figure. Even Anna Wintour, the editor of American Vogue and notorious scourge of fat, seems to be coming round to the idea of curves. Recently, she featured the shapely British singer Adele in the magazine. Okay, she was photographed lying down, but at least Wintour didn’t ask her to lose weight for the shoot, as she famously did with Oprah Winfrey. The emaciated look has simply run its course for a whole host of reasons, and now we are ready for something completely different.

In the first place, thin has got boring. Not just boring, but grindingly predictable. Along with long blonde hair, skinny-as- nothing has become the default position of anyone who wants to get noticed (or photographed), with the result that anyone good-looking who breaks the mould now appears twice as striking and original. Beth Ditto is naked on the cover of Love not because her size makes the image shockingly avant-garde (that was last year). She’s there because she represents the end of fashion’s blind allegiance to the Identikit clothes model, and the beginning of a new love affair with the parts that make women different from indie boys.

The timing of this shift towards a new aesthetic is no accident. Whippet-thin is the standard body type of the high-maintenance woman with a husband in corporate finance, and those sharp shoulders jutting through cashmere have started to look decidedly last year. A reality check is happening across the board (in fashion, Karl Lagerfeld has christened it “the new modesty”). Now a real figure looks a lot more appealing and sexier than a starved one in the same way that driving a Hummer seems hilariously out of touch with the mood of the times. In Hollywood, it’s already noticeable: the likes of Jennifer Aniston have got a bit more flesh on their bones, and the disciples of Rachel Zoe (the Zoebots) are no longer setting the agenda.

Still, it would be naive to pretend we can just erase all these years of brainwashing overnight. Shape is making a comeback, but our perspective has adjusted and now the curvier figure has to obey certain rules. You need a small waist and a flat stomach to contrast with those fuller hips. A pair of nice arms, good ankles and a well-defined clavicle make all the difference. Above all, shape has to be dressed right for it to work, and that means finding the fashions that need filling out: the silhouette-hugging dresses, not the billowing harem pants. Every time Christina Hendricks (Joan in Mad Men) is interviewed and photographed in contemporary clothes, you are reminded that casual, undone and edgy do no favours for the hourglass figure. In that early 1960s look, with asset-packing sheath and immaculate up-do, any woman would die to look like her. But in a thigh-skimming asymmetric number with a frill down the front or, God forbid, jeans and T-shirt, she looks like the big girl who doesn’t quite have what it takes.

In the end, shape has been out of favour for too long because so many of the clothes in the forefront of fashion simply don’t work for women with curves. Now change is coming.

Original here

Ten Graphic Design Paradoxes


Paradoxometer prototyped by Adrian Shaughnessy. Artwork by Tea Design

I’ve just finished writing a book about graphic design. Yep, just what the world needs — another graphic design book. In my defence, the book is about the stuff that doesn't get written about much. It deals with subjects like rejection, envy, and plagiarism. There are also entries on kerning, the wisdom of using only lowercase letters, and the merits of Univers. But mostly it’s a book about the soft stuff — the stuff that we deal with every day and tend to take for granted.

In writing this book I discovered that many aspects of graphic design are paradoxical. I’m using the word paradox here to mean an opinion or statement contrary to commonly accepted wisdom. And while there are many others, here are my top ten everyday graphic design paradoxes.


01: There’s no such thing as bad clients: only bad designers. We love to blame our clients for poor work. When projects go sour, it’s always the clients — never us — who are at fault. Sure, there are bad clients. But designers treating them badly have usually turned them into bad clients. As designers, we end up with the clients we deserve.

02: The best way to learn how to become a better graphic designer is to become a client. On the few occasions that I’ve been a paying commissioner of graphic design, I’ve learned more about being a designer than by anything else I’ve done. It’s only by commissioning graphic designers that we discover that most of us are not very good at articulating what we do and how we work. For many clients, designers seem to operate on the principle expressed by the architect hero of Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead: “I don’t intend to build in order to have clients. I intend to have clients in order to build.” As part of their training, all designers should be obliged to spend a sum of their own money on graphic design.

03: If we want to educate our clients about design, we must first educate ourselves about our clients. When I hear designers say that “we must educate our clients”, I want to break out in hives. Instead of educating our clients, we must educate ourselves in the ways of our clients. Then — and only then — will clients take us seriously.

04: If we want to make money as a graphic designer, we must concentrate on the work — not the money. Whenever I’ve taken on design projects “just for the money,” disaster has invariably ensued. When we put money first and work second, we end up with bad work and an even worse balance sheet. This is not to say that designers shouldn’t be properly paid for their work, or that designers shouldn't be financially savvy (clients usually are). But the designer’s primary motive has to be the quality of the design and not the size of the fee. When the focus is on the money, the work is usually poor.

05: For designers, verbal skills are as important as visual skills. Since graphic design should be self-explanatory, designers might be forgiven for thinking that the need to provide a verbal rationale for their work is unimportant. Surely the work should succeed on its own merits without requiring a designer’s advocacy? True. Except there never was a client who didn’t want an explanation for every aspect of every piece of creative work they commissioned. If we can’t talk about our work in a clear, rational and objective way — free from all jargon — then we can’t be surprised when we meet with rejection.

06: Ideas usually fail not because they're bad ideas, but because they're badly presented. The ability to present an idea is as important as the idea itself. The single most important thing we need to remember when presenting work to clients is that they are terrified at the prospect of what we are going to show them. For clients, commissioning design is like going into a furniture showroom to buy a sofa and being told by the salesperson, “Sure, I can sell you a sofa. But I can’t show it to you.” Who ever spent money on something they couldn’t see? Yet this is precisely what we ask our clients to do when they commission us.

07: “I’m a professional: I know best.” The only designers who use this argument are unprofessional designers. Designers often say, “No one tells a doctor what to do, so why is it OK to tell me what to do?” But the myth of professional omnipotence has been debunked. We no longer accept that doctors, lawyers and plumbers have a monopoly on knowledge. Speak to any doctor and they will tell you that people come into their consulting rooms armed with information downloaded from the internet. We have long since learned to question and challenge expert opinion. Why should designers be exempt? Anyone who uses the “I’m a professional therefore you must accept what I say” argument has lost the argument.

08: “All the good jobs go to other designers.” Not true: in fact, nearly all jobs start off as neither good nor bad. We are deluded if we think only other people get good jobs and we only get the rubble. Truth is, nearly all jobs start off the same, and our responses as designers determine the success or failure of each job. There are no good or bad projects in design, only good or bad responses. Good projects are made not found. I’ve often interviewed designers who told me they wanted to move jobs because they only got “lousy projects to work on”. Yet when they showed me what they’d been working on, they usually seemed like great jobs.

09: The best way to run a studio is to be domineering and forceful. In fact, the opposite is true. Designers who run studios or lead teams often think they have to lead from the front. They think they have to dominate. They think they have to take credit for everything. In fact, the opposite is true. Good leaders of design teams lead from behind. They put themselves last and allow others to shine. When designers are allowed to shine, they shine more brightly.

10: If we believe in nothing, we shouldn’t wonder why no one believes in us. In a world with no principles, people respect those who have principles. Impersonating a doormat is a poor way to be an effective graphic designer. In fact, standing up for what we believe in — ethics, morality, professional standards, even aesthetic preferences — is the only way to produce meaningful work. Of course we won’t win every time, but we will win more often than the designer who doesn't believe in anything. There are countless ways in which we can demonstrate professional integrity — the only mistake we can make is not to demonstrate any.

Footnote: Just like the amp in Spinal Tap that goes up to 11, my list of 10 paradoxes actually contains 11 items. Here is the eleventh paradox of graphic design.

11. When a client says the words — “you have complete creative freedom,” they never mean complete creative freedom. Whatever you show them, they will find a problem with. Happens every time.

Original here