The Art and Colour of General Motors

[GMTruckGuy74]

Here's the description as printed in the July issue of Hemmings (picture from my Droid phone):

From the publisher's webpage (http://coachbuiltpress.com/bookpage-artandcolour.html):

General Motors has been a world leader in automotive design for 100 years. No other large scale manufacturer has put such energy and resources into creating cars that are as beautiful, colorful, and forward thinking.

Coachbuilt Press is honored to tell this important story through the words of the world's great automotive historians, journalists, and designers: Phil Patton, Terry V. Boyce, Michael Lamm, Jerry Burton, Tracy Powell, Tony Hossain, Lawrence R. Gustin, Jeffrey I. Godshall, Ed Welburn, Ken Gross, and Richard S. Adatto.

Unique historical images and artwork are complimented by the insightful, contemporary photographs of Michael Furman. Foreword by Bob Lutz; introduction by Nicola Bulgari; edited by Jonathan A. Stein.

$100 - Standard hardbound

To purchase, click here.

"If GM wants to melt the hearts of bailout opponents, ...show them Michael Furman's lucious studio photographs..." Lisa Rossi, The Wall Street Journal

"Immaculately researched and lovingly photographed...presenting long looks at the studio's triumphs without sugar-coating the rough years." Unrefinery.com

"...a fitting tribute for the carmaker's 100th anniversary." Autoweek

"...a love letter to classic GM cars, from the Mako Shark to the 1958 Firebird III on the cover...this collection is the stuff of dreams." Connie Ogle, Miami Herald

$100, hardbound, check the link above for some pictures. Haven't seen it in person yet, but will be on the lookout, though being unemployed right now $100 is too much for me.

Edited July 13, 2010 by GMTruckGuy74

[Croc]

"Colour"?? Clearly, this is not an American endeavor.

[ocnblu]

Mr Croc, I believe that spelling is historically correct.

[GMTruckGuy74]

Mr Croc, I believe that spelling is historically correct.

You're right ocnblu... Harley Earl called it "Colour". I guess in the '20s/'30s that lent an air of superiority over just "color".

I did a little more checking and found that this book is not a "new" release, as it has been on market since October, 2008. However, the article/blurb in Hemmings was the first announcement I saw for this book. If I was working and had the extra $100 I'd get it; at this point I may have to ask for it for my birthday in December.

Edited July 13, 2010 by GMTruckGuy74

[Croc]

Mr Croc, I believe that spelling is historically correct.

And "cookie" used to be spelled "cooky," while "donut" was "doughnut" etc. "Colour" isn't American English anymore!

[the_yellow_dart]

Here they're still spelled 'colour' and 'doughnut' (as in Britain). You Americans are the only ones changing the spelling of things. Which is ironic, because you're the only ones not changing your measurement system to metric.

[Z-06]

$100, hardbound, check the link above for some pictures. Haven't seen it in person yet, but will be on the lookout, though being unemployed right now $100 is too much for me.

Have it on Amazon for $63.00.

[GMTruckGuy74]

Have it on Amazon for $63.00.

I saw that yesterday when looking for an image of the book's cover!!

I noticed the price, and made mention of it to the wife

Edited July 14, 2010 by GMTruckGuy74

[Croc]

Here they're still spelled 'colour' and 'doughnut' (as in Britain). You Americans are the only ones changing the spelling of things. Which is ironic, because you're the only ones not changing your measurement system to metric.

Well, like Britain, Canada still recognizes Queen Elizabeth II as Head of State. Maybe that's why linguistics have stayed similar to Britain, whereas the USA diverged 2.3 centuries ago, gained cultural influences from Africa, Mexico, South Pacific, South America and Central America, leading to new linguistic traditions as everything amalgamated. Just a guess.

[the_yellow_dart]

Croc - I think the approach to language in the US leans more towards the practical than the traditional.

The spelling changes were just to update the words as their pronunciation changed. Most words with silent letters are that way because at one time, the letters weren't silent. Knuckle, for example. Pronouncing it the original way sounds kind of silly (no silent K), but that's how it was until people slowly dropped it.

Taking the American, practical approach to spelling does make sense, and it's the normal way that languages developed over time - it's only recently that the Brits have taken to hanging onto traditions.

What happens if we take it further?

nuckles

sanwich

nife

Wensday

awnest

awnor

neumonia

iland

chrismas

rong

I like some of those and not others...

[Croc]

Croc - I think the approach to language in the US leans more towards the practical than the traditional.

The spelling changes were just to update the words as their pronunciation changed. Most words with silent letters are that way because at one time, the letters weren't silent. Knuckle, for example. Pronouncing it the original way sounds kind of silly (no silent K), but that's how it was until people slowly dropped it.

Agreed, but I think the massive amounts of cultural exchange have a larger role than you're giving credit toward. Also, a lot of times super-common mispellings simply become acceptable, and then standard, much like grammar evolves based on changing times.

Also, many of the silent letters weren't pronounced...but the words were borrowed or evolved from other languages where that combination of letters created the necessary dipthong.

sanwich

Wensday

chrismas

I don't agree. I've never noticed people failing to pronounce the "d" in sandwich, or the "st" in Christmas, especially since Christmas refers to "Christ."

awnest

awnor

rong

Those just look nasty to me. Until China simplifies its characters, I'm not going to worry about the nuances of the English language like they need fixing LOL

Edited July 14, 2010 by Croc

[SAmadei]

What happens if we take it further?

Already been done, over a hundred years ago...

A Plan for the Improvement of English Spelling

For example, in Year 1 that useless letter c would be dropped to be replased either by k or s, and likewise x would no longer be part of the alphabet. The only kase in which c would be retained would be the ch formation, which will be dealt with later.

Year 2 might reform w spelling, so that which and one would take the same konsonant, wile Year 3 might well abolish y replasing it with i and Iear 4 might fiks the g/j anomali wonse and for all.

Jenerally, then, the improvement would kontinue iear bai iear with Iear 5 doing awai with useless double konsonants, and Iears 6-12 or so modifaiing vowlz and the rimeining voist and unvoist konsonants.

Bai Iear 15 or sou, it wud fainali bi posibl tu meik ius ov thi ridandant letez c, y and x — bai now jast a memori in the maindz ov ould doderez — tu riplais ch, sh, and th rispektivli.

Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spiking werld.

Mark Twain

[ocnblu]

Oh my Lord... Harley Earl wanted it called Art & Colour! And he's the MAN!