Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've tried making this same point when it comes to auto designs (at least in the competitive, cost-sensitive ones). A lot of mid-sized cars look the same because the design constraints generally converge on the same handful of principles. They've converged not in the aesthetic sense as much as the engineering sense: because they work at a relatively low cost. (I'm speaking mainly about things like aerodynamics here,…
I’d argue that convergence _is_ soulless-ness and cars present a great example of the point. The “soul” of something that is inanimate is the qualities that make it memorable or stick it in our mind with some manner of tactility. Not literal tactility but the nature of how you can visualize something so clearly it’s almost like you can touch it in your mind. I’m getting a bit spacey here but let’s get concrete: Jerem…
I'm saying it can also be driven by something else. There are probably only a few major players in the automotive aerodynamic software design space. Unlike the days when the design was driven by an artist with a block of clay, I suspect modern designs are often based on the same computer driven models with the same underlying physics. The software is probably a more refined and optimized approach, but this results in a convergence in looks and a lack of that idiosyncratic "soul"