Any opinions on the new book on Bill Mitchell?

I have one of the first group of numbered copies in 2 volumes. Great stuff with lots of inside stories. Wonderful that it credits the teams that did the design.

What males abundantly clear is just had bad of a decision the GM board made when the voted to make Irv his successor.

 

First a disclaimer: I was a minor contributor to the book, and the author is a friend of mine.

However, I believe the book is the definitive book on the man, the legend and the Maestro, William L. Mitchell.
A larger than life character, Bill Mitchell was a legendary force in automotive design history. His portfolio of cars from the '60's is peerless.
A very complex character who could be mercurial at best.
The book is great for anyone interested in design history and the American automobile.
I highly recommend it for one looking for a behind the scenes look at GM Design during it's high point. There are countless photos of clay models and airbrush renderings that have rarely or never been shown to the public.
Highly recommended.

 

To the first question, Wayne’s sketches were when he was in the Advanced Studio. They were looking at all manner of V12/V16 heroic cars influenced from the 1930’s. That was an era when Mitchell and GM Styling were on a roll. The sky was the limit. Too much was never enough. And yes, they were all playing to the ‘boss’, Mr. Mitchell.

I’m not sure about your second question, but every designer had his ( they were 99% male) own sketch technique, but they also influenced one another. The goal was to ‘sell’ your ideas to the ‘boss’. That meant doing attention grabbing sketches. Whatever it took. The design staff would go through phases regarding techniques. Whomever had the hottest technique and got Mitchell’s attention was widely admired, and yes copied for technique. But at the end of the day, it was the creative idea that would get all the attention. Technique or not. That was a wildly creative era, and the cars showed it.

 

I remember a Chrysler designer making a statement about Chuck Jordan being able to see past all the fancy techniques to identify the best design. Although one would expect that this would be try of the most senior Design leadership the reality was regularly not so true.

 

That is so true. I can look past the technique and ask myself what is the real design here?
With computers the level of rendering skills is off the chart cool. However, the design sometimes gets lost in the flashy techniques.
One of the first things that enters my mind is 'what would that sketch look like as a full size clay?' or a full size production car?

 

Also to be asked, Will it translate into reality or is the sketch so cheated that what makes it interesting never can fit the actual package?

 

The WD 40 comment reminds me of competition between Larry Shinoda and another designer to do the 1968 Corvettes. Mr Mitchell is judging the two car designs outside but not on the patio. The other car is a pale blue color. The Larry Shinoda car is I think silver blue and the finish has been rubbed with some sort of oil so it glistens in the sunshine. Mr Mitchell touches the other car and the back end literally falls off! Mr Mitchell chooses the Shinoda design but both designers have to work together to 'refine' the shape for production. Mr Shinoda was one sharp designer!

 

Was machine oil. Some of the teams liked to wipe a coat of machine oil on the di-noced cars to make them shiny. That trick went out the window when the paint shops agreed to spray clear coat on the di-noc. But that was saved for the very ‘important’ shows, not design evaluations.
The competition between studios was very intense. You did whatever it took to make a great impression and have your car look the best.