Cunard - Another Opinion

[dougnewmanatsea]

Note: This was originally posted on a private e-mailing list about ocean liners. It was re-posted here without permission by a Cruise Critic member. Because it is copyrighted material, this is against our Community Guidelines, and the original post has been removed. However, the author has requested that it stay on Cruise Critic because it had already prompted a discussion that he (and I) feel is too worthwhile to discard. That said, in the future I must ask Cruise Critic members to refrain from posting others' copyrighted material on the boards. This includes not only things like news articles, but other peoples' posts to other sites. Likewise, please do not post others' Cruise Critic posts on any other site without their permission. If you have any questions about this, please do not hesitate to e-mail me. Thanks. -Doug

 

Please permit me to translate

 

Cunard Line has operated the most famous ocean liners in the world since 1840. Cunard vessels have a classic British heritage and include the legendary Queen Elizabeth 2 and Queen Mary 2. Queen Victoria joins the fleet in 2007.

 

Cunard Line once operated ocean liners, but times change and it is now primarily a cruise line. Cunard vessels, or the bits that passengers see of them, are designed by a Swede who lives in Florida and are about as British as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad eating crocodile steak in the Antartic. Over the years, Cunard has succeeded in making the once-gorgeous Queen Elizabeth 2 into a tacky conglomeration of tat and has unfortunately purpose-designed other ships to follow suit because its primary customer base is so aesthetically challenged, so blind and so conservative to the point of being reactionary that it thinks that this approach reflects having arrived in social circles, vulgar imbiciles that they are.

 

Cunard Line is a proud member of World's Leading Cruise Lines. The exclusive alliance also includes Carnival Cruise Lines, Holland America Line, Princess Cruises, Costa Cruises, Windstar Cruises and The Yachts of Seabourn. Sharing a passion to please each guest, and a commitment to quality and value, member lines appeal to a wide range of lifestyles and budgets. Together they offer exciting and enriching cruise vacations to the world's most desirable destinations.

 

Cunard line belongs to Carnival - as do more than a third of other cruise lines in existence. Sharing a passion to provide top-end formulaic motel mediocrity and to exploit third world labour, member lines appeal both to trailer trash and Hyacinth Buckets alike.

 

Together, they offer predictable and stereotypical cruise vacations to the world's most despoiled coastal destinations.

 

Right. There you go! Only an opinion. Dare you to ban me!

 

;-)

 

Best regards

 

Bruce

-Dr. Bruce Peter, Lecturer, Glasgow School of Art and Maritime Historian and Writer

 

A further explanation from Bruce (edited for brevity):

 

Hello Doug

 

...I think that the shipping line believes that a relatively low level of design is appropriate to the demographic they hope to attract. Personally, I believe in EVERYBODY enjoying a high level of design that is fresh, stylish and innovative - not a pale immitation of a frankly unpleasant past era (1930sw depression, fascism etc), rendered in artificial laminate. Things have come to a pretty pass when a new Channel ferry like the Maersk Dunkerque has a far better quality of fittings than a supposedly prestige liner. (Note: You can see good interior photos of the ship Bruce is talking about here.) And what of all of those fantastic boutique hotels? The other week, I stayed in one in Copenhagen and it was FANTASTIC. Really memorable. Surely these should provide fresh inspiration when creating a luxurious environment for the 21st Century?

 

[A] brand new super-expensive wonder ship should be just that - it should be absolutely sensational, like France, Raffaello or Sagafjord were in their own eras. I simply want the cruise industry to snap out of its complacency and to commission genuinely fresh and outstanding design from critically regarded architects and interior designers. It's what I campaign for all of the time and at every opportunity. How will future generations judge ships of the current era, when compared with their predecessors in the same trades? Will QE2 be regarded as having been improved with each refit, or will the removal of its bespoke 1960s fittings be regarded as having dumbed down a great piece of modern British architecture, industrial and interior design? Will there be anything worth saving by some future Dick Faber or Peter Knego when the current crop of new cruise ships goes for scrap in 30-50 years' time? Or will the fittings of today's ships be of no more value than those of an average Hyatt hotel? I do fear the latter.

 

There is a wide body of literature on issues of corporate morality in relation to consumerism. I just wonder whether much of today's cruise industry is complicit in maintaining a rather banal hegemony, rather than inspiring and challenging users with extraordinary design. Also, as a professional man, working in the architecture and design field, I dislike being told that something mediocre is exceptional and legendary when all I've learned and experienced tells me that it is incredibly formulaic and timid. There isn't much difference between QM2 and Norwegian Sky - both are Tillberg 'out of the box' designs with a similar design language. What would have happened had a Nigel Coates, a Zaha Hadid, a Norman Foster, or any of the many younger generation designers, based in London asnd elsewhere, been asked to design this vessel instead. Alas, today's cruise lines wouldn't even have thought to ask.

 

You're very welcome to transfer this to Cruise Critic. I like to provoke a good debate - the last thing one wants is for people blindly to accept what they're given.

 

Best regards

 

Bruce

Now... Discuss ;) .

 

(Personally, I think he's right.)

[Vic The Parrot]

"Discuss" ??

 

Don't you mean throw punches ?

 

 

 

:D

[dougnewmanatsea]

Don't you mean throw punches ?

Now then, I would never suggest that our members be anything less than thoroughly civilized to each other ;) .

[Vic The Parrot]

Now then, I would never suggest that our members be anything less than thoroughly civilized to each other ;) .

 

 

 

Riiiiiiiiiiight ......

 

 

 

:D

[Bramcruiser]

He he he. Vic you are probably more correct even though I am sure that was never the intent. With the previous thread remove I think I best not say anything on the subject. We all have our views. I said some on the old deleted thread out of passion. I don't necessarily agree with the person who made the comments and thus enough said. Moving on!

 

David

Who's looking forward to the QM2 and the QE2 and doesn't necessarily believe a title or number of degrees make much difference!

[desirod]

Hello Doug

 

...I think that the shipping line believes that a relatively low level of design is appropriate to the demographic they hope to attract. Personally, I believe in EVERYBODY enjoying a high level of design that is fresh, stylish and innovative - not a pale immitation of a frankly unpleasant past era (1930sw depression, fascism etc), rendered in artificial laminate.

 

I write

 

 

Le France and the SS United States were very innovative in use of polymers. Plastics used for there inherent properties can be quite smart. It is when they are used to imitate organic materials they look cheap

 

 

 

Things have come to a pretty pass when a new Channel ferry like the Maersk Dunkerque has a far better quality of fittings than a supposedly prestige liner. (Note: You can see good interior photos of the ship Bruce is talking about here.) And what of all of those fantastic boutique hotels? The other week, I stayed in one in Copenhagen and it was FANTASTIC. Really memorable. Surely these should provide fresh inspiration when creating a luxurious environment for the 21st Century?

 

[A] brand new super-expensive wonder ship should be just that - it should be absolutely sensational, like France, Raffaello or Sagafjord were in their own eras. I simply want the cruise industry to snap out of its complacency and to commission genuinely fresh and outstanding design from critically regarded architects and interior designers.

 

Unfortunately most project managers fear for their jobs, and will only hire those with a track record for ships. If it goes wrong, well they picked the best. To further the chaos, committees get involved and micromanage which leads to a camel: a horse designed by comittee.

 

Princess has an in-house department and inter-office politics stymie creative efforts. If an independant design firm can pick and choose clients and walk off if they become a problem.

 

However difficult a land based commercial construction job is; quadrouple it for a ship.

 

The old ships of state were showcases for the best design and craftsmanship a country had to offer. Today a ship is a fantasy escape from the weekly grind

 

It's what I campaign for all of the time and at every opportunity. How will future generations judge ships of the current era, when compared with their predecessors in the same trades? Will QE2 be regarded as having been improved with each refit, or will the removal of its bespoke 1960s fittings be regarded as having dumbed down a great piece of modern British architecture, industrial and interior design?

 

a result of quarter to quarter thinking rather than long range planning, plus design deaf executives, and egocentric hack decorators who need to make a mark when they should not.

 

Will there be anything worth saving by some future Dick Faber or Peter Knego when the current crop of new cruise ships goes for scrap in 30-50 years' time? Or will the fittings of today's ships be of no more value than those of an average Hyatt hotel? I do fear the latter.

 

There is a wide body of literature on issues of corporate morality in relation to consumerism. I just wonder whether much of today's cruise industry is complicit in maintaining a rather banal hegemony, rather than inspiring and challenging users with extraordinary design. Also, as a professional man, working in the architecture and design field, I dislike being told that something mediocre is exceptional and legendary when all I've learned and experienced tells me that it is incredibly formulaic and timid.

 

cruising that used to be a venue for wealthy retirees has gone downmarket to the point that it is an alternative to a week in Blackpool /Jersey Shore. Carnival was the first to tap this change. Other lines followed suit

 

There isn't much difference between QM2 and Norwegian Sky - both are Tillberg 'out of the box' designs with a similar design language. What would have happened had a Nigel Coates, a Zaha Hadid, a Norman Foster, or any of the many younger generation designers, based in London asnd elsewhere, been asked to design this vessel instead. Alas, today's cruise lines wouldn't even have thought to ask.

 

The starchitects you mention are not skilled in the nitty gritty of ship building. What is specified and what is built can be different. I fear that the egos of starchitects would clash with certain cruise line execs and they would not take the job. I know of many cases where the starchitect

does not listen to the client and gets fired. Many will take an unknown up-and-comer who is talented and innovative and gets the job done nicely.

 

I have spoken at length with many ship interior designers, naval architects, and marine engineers at Sea Trade who love the great liners and great design too. They are realistic to the forces of the market and business. Many will tell you there best work is yet to be built.

 

David

Industrial Designer and Lighting Designer

 

 

 

You're very welcome to transfer this to Cruise Critic. I like to provoke a good debate - the last thing one wants is for people blindly to accept what they're given.

 

Best regards

 

Bruce

[travel-to-go]

"Discuss" ??

 

Don't you mean throw punches ?

 

 

 

:D

 

Vic,

First, let me say, You drive me crazy every time you post email me at parrotheadNJ6374 (or whatever the numbers were) Do we know one another? Are you going to MOTM? (I am) (Sincerely, parrothead-av8r@mindspring.com) From PHCoCT

 

Second, To your question? They dnn't call us critics for nuttin', honey!

 

Then to speak to Bruce's restatement. Once he says things in a more civilized manner, with genuine and earnest statements of opinion instead of vitriol, I tend to agree with what he said. Basically, the builders in the cruise industry build a type of ship (Voyager Class, HALs whatever-it-is class- Forgive me I am trired from work and brain dead at the moment) and then copy it. It is cookie cutter. Then they alter a little here, and a little there. This is why they can design the QM2 or the "Vicki" and change their minds mid-stream and decide it will be a Princess instead of a Queen. The interiors vary somewhat, but really, when you come right down to it, they are NOT innovative. About the most I can say is they change the ceiling treatment in the main dining room (From fiber-optic stars, to waves of fabric, to pressed-tin look, to stencil, to... whatever. Think about it. Most ships, if you were brought on in a blindfold, and it was removed, you could not tell what ship you were on, unless you had really memorized details. Yes, the seasons and continents murals, and the Sam Cunard mosaic are interesting and unique. However, the Birds in the Wintergaden is the exact same painting that is in, I think, the forward bar on the HAL Westerdam! If you took away certain elements (the big tapestry) in the Brittania, what distinguishes it from some other cruise line's multi-tiered dining room. And the rooms? Pretty much standard. Not a whole lot of difference. (Except other lines give you a shower door instead of a half a shower curtain that does not quite reach) Nope. They really are fomulaic.

Maybe that is the cost-savings of "mass production"- interchangable parts. Maybe it is an unwillingness to step out from the crowd and risk a negative reaction. Maybe the public wants the sameness. After all, who else but us makes a Mc Donald's on the Champs Elysee profitable. People bitch about it, but if it wasn't making money, it would fold. We've turned every Caribbean port into schlock. Every cruiseline does pretty much the same shore excursions. The only reason Cunard does't have a "Private Island" where the profit is all theirs and not shared with Boolchand's, Fat Tuesday's, Carlos and Charlies, Diamonds International and Columbian Emeralds is that it wouldn't pay with only two ships. You coudn't keep it busy enough.

 

Yep. He's right, now that he isn't spitting venom at me. We are accepting mediocrity and carbon copies. Shame on us for making it that way, and for accepting it. It think, with relatively few exceptions (Remember I said RELATIVELY) it's what people want.

 

Snnoooze.

 

Karie,

Who needs to snooze. But not over ship design and decor.

[dougnewmanatsea]

Unfortunately most project managers fear for their jobs, and will only hire those with a track record for ships.

This is true... But as you well know, even those designers don't always actually like what they're designing. They just design what their clients want.

 

If Cunard asked Tillberg to design a fresh, modern ship... That's what they'd have done. Cunard said, "build us a traditional-looking ocean liner" and so we got - well, I need not tell anyone what we got, since we all know all too well what we got ;) .

 

It is interesting to note that the first QUEEN VICTORIA was supposed to be a "modern British cruise ship". Unfortunately, she wasn't designed from scratch, which made her rather inadequate and so P&O Princess rightly decided not to make her a Cunarder (though she seems not to be doing at all well at P&O, either). I just wish that they kept the "modern British" theme - indeed, it could have produced a stunning ship. Instead we will wind up with a plastic AQUITANIA inside a Vista-class hull.

 

No, I'm afraid it's the cruise lines who are at fault. The designers, I am sure, are perfectly capable of designing modern ships. But if the cruise lines ask them to do "traditional", that's exactly what they do.

 

I don't know if you've seen the various proposals Yran & Storbraaten came up with for the Disney ships, but one of them was very avant-garde. Of course, Disney chose the most "traditional"-looking proposal (and as it turned out, the result is rather attractive, but I give Disney a lot more leeway in this area than Cunard).

 

Then to speak to Bruce's restatement. Once he says things in a more civilized manner, with genuine and earnest statements of opinion instead of vitriol, I tend to agree with what he said.

His original post was tongue-in-cheek. I know him very well and believe me, he does not think we are visually illiterate, vulgar imbeciles.

 

He was merely pointing out how ridiculous Cunard's PR-speak is by being equally ridiculous himself.

 

It's also worth noting that his post wasn't meant for this board or this audience. I am sure it would have been worded differently if it had been.