Language of Design: Pet Peeves

I can definitely tell that the Seiko I'm wearing today was heavily influenced by late twentieth century cost-minimalism.

OMG, I'm dying laughing here!

I’d like to throw in a few that I’ve had that I think are legit Art Deco.

I’m sensing a trend… don’t tell me, I’ll work it out.

Back on topic, I think this is something that has got worse over time. The general standard of watch content is declining, so it’s just laziness. Perhaps I’m just a miserable git, but it always feels someone sees “Bauhaus inspired”, and then whacks it into an op-ed and then it’s paraded around like a insignia without any thought or understanding what the designer was trying to achieve. It’s minimal innit? Yes, but why… Perhaps it’s the decline of form and function in watch making; I’m surprised at how many people are shocked at the suggestion of still using a watch to tell the time.

I also agree with the points about engineering over design. It’s a lost language, and a dying art. Take the new Omega mega super divery thing (I’ve forgotten the name) - I can’t read the damn thing, but it would survive on Venus. Beautiful. I also don’t care - complete apathy. This is the new crisis we are sleepwalking into. Boring watches with poor design choices marketed to people who don’t care what they are as long as they can post them on IG and flip them for the next hyped thing. How many BB58s, or ATs do we need?

I smiled to myself when someone re-dropped the sweet ironic parallel between Bauhaus mass-production and cheap drop-shipped watches, because it was lost on the majority and had got buried within the noise. Cracking take. 

A few thoughts:

1.  Solid Hamilton collection. If there was a prize for vintage Hamilton you would be in the running.
2.  They make brown leather straps.
3.   Examples 1, 3, and 5, fit my understanding of Art Deco.  The dial of #1 is from an earlier design school, but the chrome case puts it into Art Deco.  I will guess that is your earliest piece, perhaps early to mid-1920's.  #3 hits it all the way.  #5 is inching towards the 1940's with those applied numerals (I think that every American watch maker in the early '40's had the same supplier of applied numerals), however the stepped case puts it in AD territory.  To the extent that #2 and #4 used chrome and a combination of curved and straight lines they approach AD. You might convince me, but I am on the fence about those. I am guessing that only #4 and #5 date from the 1940's.

My original point was that Art Deco means more than old watch, just like Bauhaus means more than minimalist watch. Your examples are drawn from the decades when Art Deco held sway. Tank watches continued to be the most popular style into the mid-1950's when round watches took over. Most of those watches were transitional in design (like the one that I am wearing today), with some AD elements but with styling that was also more forward looking.

Now, show us your Bauhaus Daniel Wellingtons.

There‘s only one Bauhaus I’m interested in:
 

We can now officially date 1978 as the official end of the Bauhaus movement. (I saw Love and Rockets, the successor band, in 1985 at Tipitina's in New Orleans.)

The dates of these are:

1) 1931.  2) 1930.  3) 1937. 4) 1932. 5) 1937.

I have had a fascination with the differences between Art Deco, Art Nouveau and Streamline Deco. The problem is that every time I learn something, I forget it just as quickly. 

I’ll add my two cents but I think @roberto probably has done a better job of it.

I think the language, terminology and labels we use are there to help us try to categorize that particular item so we can better understand it. The labels we use today to define a style are almost always retroactively created - and as such, there is always going to be examples where the definitions are much more generous and open for interpretation.

I haven’t studied watch design so when I attempt to understand their design motivations I naturally default to the language I use from my architectural background. I don’t feel this inappropriate. I am just searching for a shared language to help me better communicate/discuss a design. I would liken it to a sommelier describing a wine - grassy, jammy, etc. - breaking it down in a way so we can appreciate the differences and figure out what we like/don’t like.

Personally, I don’t mind if someone uses a term incorrectly to describe something. I appreciate they recognize and care to speak to design in the first place. It opens the door for more conversation, and most times I can see how they’ve interpreted one stylistic gesture and arrived at there conclusion.

With regards to Nomos, I think its a bit disingenuous to compare what they are doing to what Timex has done/is doing with the Marlin. Nomos is taking the design tenets/principles established during the bauhaus movement and creating new, modern designs. Timex is taking the original Marlin and making some small adjustments to give it broader appeal for today. They may both result in “minimalist” watches, but how they arrived there makes all the difference… to bring it back, it’s the difference between delivering a building and delivering architecture. It’s also what separates the chinese imitations and what Nomos is doing.

My little quip about the Marlin was meant to provoke, not enlighten. You are right about the process. Oddly, my problem is not with Nomos, but with those who just lazily ascribe everything they do to Bauhaus, as though that is an unassailable answer. Artistic movements have fuzzy beginnings and endings, but they are still defined by time. Today, one can be Bauhaus inspired without being Bauhaus. The Vario 1918 Trench is inspired by a time but not of it. On the edges of watch design there are some using Dada principles but we don't call them such because, as watch consumers, we only know two terms: Art Deco and Bauhaus.

Interesting topic, even if it isn't my particular area of interest. 

What I can add is this, every hobby/interest has three broad groups:

1. Expert - a professional in the field of interest;
2. Hobbyist - someone with a keen interest, that studies the hobby/interest in their spare time; and
3. Everyman - average people with little to no knowledge of the topic. 

This conversation is pretty much all about  "expert" vs. "hobbyist" vs. "everyman" terminology. 

In meteorology(my career) this is something that comes up every day on TV, Radio, the internet, at the water cooler, etc.. There are "expert" terms to describe the weather used in forecast discussions, and aviation weather that the "everyman" would never be able to understand, and the 'hobbyist" would struggle to make proper sense of. So, in the interests of making the weather understandable, we use simplified terms that give a general picture of what the conditions will be for public forecasts. Eg. "sunny", "mix of sun and cloud", "disturbance", etc..

What watch media seems to be doing when describing things as "Art Deco", or "Bauhaus", is using "Everyman/Hobbyist" terms to give a general impression of the design style to people who aren't "Experts". 

Another example:

Expert;

METAR CYOW 222000Z 27009KT 240V310 15SM FEW045 FEW230 04/M06 A3023 RMK CU1CI1 CU TR SLP246=
 

TAF CYOW 222040Z 2221/2318 27010G20KT P6SM FEW040
BECMG 2221/2222 35010G20KT
FM230100 01008KT P6SM SKC
FM231400 08008KT P6SM BKN180
BECMG 2314/2316 08012G22KT
RMK NXT FCST BY 230000Z

Everyman;

A few clouds, winds out of the West at 20km/h, temperature 4 C 

Winds will become northerly 20 gusting 40km/h this evening, with increasing cloudiness overnight. Winds will change to strong Easterlies 20-30 km/h gusting to 40-50km/h tomorrow morning. 

What defines a Tank watch? Is it okay to refer to a square watch as a Tank watch? Is there a dimensional requirement for a watch to be considered a Tank watch?