Aesthetically pleasing bricks – the influence of style on technology

Article by Lucy Fordyce

Edited by Kimberly Nicol

Is the device you’re reading this article on “stylish”? The laptop this article was written on sure isn’t. It has a rather bulky battery booster on the back, is made of boring black plastic, and doesn’t have a single sticker expressing its owner’s interests on the lid, only the name of the manufacturer (Lenovo) and series (ThinkPad). But I like it, mostly as it has a brilliant keyboard.

As an arts student with undecipherable handwriting who has typed most of her assessments since high school, I’ve seen a few bad keyboards over the years and I like to think I’m somewhat qualified to know what a good one looks like — very responsive, keys aren’t too shallow or wide-set, survives occasional angry key-bashing. Yet you just don’t see many adverts for laptops which promote the qualities of its keyboard. The focus is usually on the thinness, the screen clarity, and the available colours, essentially what’s on the outside rather than what actually affects the machine’s performance. Though without the functional matter and the hidden tech all you really have is an aesthetically pleasing brick.

Nevertheless, aesthetics are crucial to selling products because, as a general rule, we place value upon what we can see and make assumptions based on it. We assume, for example, that if a tablet looks good, everything else must be good, only realising much later that it doesn’t have enough local storage for our pre-streaming music collection so we’ll have to spend a lot of money to upgrade it (not that I’m speaking from experience or anything). Good design is, rightly or wrongly, taken as a sign of good quality, especially in the case of new products, which often rely on a fashionable appearance to appeal to consumers or stand out in a crowded market.

(Left: A promo image for the iPhone 11, highlighting the variety  of colours available and the dual camera; Right: The HP Spectre x360, showing a thin design  with on-trend rose gold accents).

A famous example of this kind of marketing is the campaign for the iMac G3, released in 1998. In 1997, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, only about 35% of US households owned a computer. Today, according to Pew Research, 81% of Americans have smartphones, nearly 75% desktops or laptops, and around 50% tablets. Apple was working with a different market, with the G3’s slogans including ‘Chic, not geek.’ and ‘Sorry, no beige.’ Taken out of context, this sounds more like an ad campaign for a fashion brand than a computer manufacturer. After all, a beige computer worked just fine...but it didn’t stick in the public’s imagination the way a “Bondi Blue” one did. The fashionable nature of the G3 was a cornerstone of its success, highlighting the crucial role aesthetics often play in creating a high-selling product. Even today, Apple’s products are seen as symbolic of status and style. A quick Google search can reveal schoolchildren being teased for having cheaper or older phones, whilst Gucci sells “iPhone Accessories for Women” but does not stock cases for Android brands like Samsung or Nokia – only the ultimate “designer phone” can be clad in pieces from the iconic fashion house.

(Left: An advert for the iMac G3. Right: A screenshot from Gucci’s online store, showing its emphasis on the iPhone and the iPhone alone.)

The car industry is another area where fashion and technology intersect to incredibly lucrative effect. Much like clothes (or phones), cars are a public insight into their owners’ lives, offering a (highly generalised, of course) view into their wealth, taste, and even their occupation. Supercars are perhaps one of the most obvious signs of money. They cost more than even the most expensive clothes, stand out on roads like the world’s most wonderfully wrapped sore thumb, and are often heard long before they are seen. Many push automobile technology to the extremes to achieve faster top speeds and better handling, yet what most commonly sets them apart from your average vehicle is the uniqueness and beauty of their design, which, like many haute couture items, often favours form over function. Put it this way: if you wouldn’t wear Balenciaga’s platform Crocs to sprint up the stairs in the University Library, you wouldn’t squish a two-metre-wide Lamborghini Aventador into the last remaining space in Aldi’s car park, would you?

(Left: Balenciaga Crocs, which retailed for $850. Right: The Lamborghini Aventador.)

Even when technology comes to the fore in a car’s marketing campaign, fashion is never far behind – Lotus' Evija concept is aiming to be the most powerful production car to date, yet there has been equal media attention placed upon its looks, especially the jet-fighter inspired tail, where air-flow tunnels also form the rear headlights. Audi, however, took a very different tack with its 2014 advert for the R8 V10 Plus. All the focus is placed on the large, naturally aspirated engine, with Audi going so far as to remove the advert car’s rear bumper to amplify its sound and to design the saleable model so that the engine is always visible through a glass panel.

(Top: an aerial view of the Audi R8 with its V10 engine on show. Bottom: the Lotus Evija;)

(Above: Moschino’s “Nothing To Wear” dress.)

Engineering is depicted as the source of the car’s beauty, ironically using styling to rebel against aesthetics-over-performance design. In a similar vein, Moschino in 2015 created a dress which was embellished with sequins and worth nearly £2000, with the writing “I had nothing to wear so I put on this expensive Moschino evening dress” emblazoned down the front, pointing out the excess for which fashion is so often criticised in an unashamedly excessive manner

The ThinkPad series of laptops might seem to be the farthest thing possible from a glittery gold gown, yet even they can’t avoid aesthetic marketing. A Lenovo ThinkPad’s main customer is a businessperson looking for something sturdy that doesn’t draw much attention, so boring black plastic is actually meant to be appealing. It draws upon the stylings of the iconic IBM ThinkPads of the 1990s to suggest a continuation of their reputation for reliability and ease of customisation. Yes, even my “unstylish” laptop is asking buyers to make assumptions based on visuals, because, though an aesthetically pleasing brick looks very different depending on who you ask, an aesthetically pleasing brick has been proven to sell just fine.

(Top: 1994’s IBM ThinkPad 755CD (a proper brick of a laptop and the first model with a CD drive) Bottom: 2018’s Lenovo ThinkPad T480 (Lenovo took over the manufacturing of ThinkPads in 2005).