{"id":492414,"date":"2012-06-01T19:00:38","date_gmt":"2012-06-02T02:00:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sportscardigest.com\/\/?p=27762"},"modified":"2023-12-18T15:23:38","modified_gmt":"2023-12-18T15:23:38","slug":"art-deco-automobile-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.supercars.net\/blog\/art-deco-automobile-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Art Deco and the Automobile"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

\u201cMAYA \u2013Most Advanced, Yet Acceptable\u201d\u2013 was the acronym industrial designer Raymond Loewy used to describe his design philosophy. To catch the eye of the consumer, he believed a design had to be the \u201cmost advanced,\u201d but too advanced could mean failure, since the design might not be widely accepted. There are many examples of both advanced-and-acceptable design and advanced-and-unacceptable. The advanced-and-acceptable tended to be aesthetically streamlined while the advanced-and-unacceptable were more aerodynamically streamlined. This feature will focus on two of each: two very advanced American automobiles that were very aerodynamic and two whose streamlining was much more aesthetic.\u00a0 Despite their differences, all four automobiles would be classified as Art Deco.<\/p>\n

\"The<\/a>
The very aerodynamically streamlined but not very successful 1934 DeSoto Airflow (left) and the more aesthetically streamlined 1936 Lincoln Zephyr (right). The Zephyr is an example of Raymond Loewy\u2019s motto \u201cMAYA \u2013 Most Advanced Yet Acceptable.\u201d The public found the Airflow to violate the \u201cacceptable\u201d part of that motto.
Photos: Helmsley Collection<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Chrysler Airflow and Lincoln Zephyr<\/b><\/p>\n<\/div>\n