The Wayfarer Essay

The Wayfarer
When first hearing a product described as “a mid-century classic to rival Eames chairs and Cadillac tail fins,” one begins racing through the potential candidates for this coveted title. Famous chairs, clothing items, textiles, and inventive pieces of technology immediately come to mind. Surprisingly this description speaks of a pair of sunglasses so iconic that they have been in and out of style for the past fifty years. The Ray Ban Wayfarer was first introduced in 1952. Ray Stegeman, a pioneer of plastic technology, designed these sunglasses as a transition out of the thin-frame metal sunglasses that had been produced up until this point. Wayfarers were a huge hit throughout the 1950s, but did not really gain widespread recognition for about ten years. Then in 1961, Audrey Hepburn was featured wearing the turtle shell Wayfarer in her hit movie Breakfast at Tiffany’s. Celebrity endorsement was huge throughout the 1950s and 60s, and the sunglasses were seen on notables like John Lennon, Bob Dylan, James Dean, John F. Kennedy, Roy Orbison, and Andy Warhol to name a few.
The popularity of the sunglasses then began to dip throughout the 1970s, almost to the point of discontinuation. Luckily the style was revitalized in the early 1980s through a huge (fifty-thousand dollar) product placement deal. Dan Aykroyd and John Belushi were featured wearing the Wayfarers in The Blues Brothers, followed by Tom Cruise in Risky Business. This was really the jumping-off point for the signature style, skyrocketing sales from 18,000 pairs per year to over 360,000 pairs per year. By 1986, the sunglasses had appeared in box office hits Miami Vice and Moonlighting, and sales had hit over 1.5 million pairs per year. Wayfarers were beginning to be seen not only on celebrities like Jack Nicholson and Anna Wintour, but also on musicians like Johnny Marr and Elvis Costello. A collection of short stories entitled The Informers, by Bret Easton Ellis, even mentioned the sunglasses several times. Ray Ban responded quickly by increasing its offering of only two models in 1981 to more than forty models by 1989.
This popularity lasted through the early 90s, and gradually began to waver off toward the turn of the century. In 1999, the entire Ray Ban Company was bought out by the Luxicotta Group – a group responsible for the design and distribution of frames for several high-end companies such as Chanel, Dolce & Gabana, Donna Karan, and Burberry.
The Wayfarer was given a huge boost under the guidance of marketing director Fabio d’Angelantonio. He decided to completely shut down distribution of the signature style for six months so that it could be perfected before being re-released into the market. The frame was redesigned to be a little smaller and lighter, for comfort purposes. The colour palette was also updated to incorporate both red and white. Of course, the classic tortoise shell and black frames were still included.
In terms of marketing strategy, much of the old marketing campaigns were abandoned in favour of a fresher, more modern approach. According to d’Angelantonio, celebrities have helped to bring the Wayfarer back, but the new ad campaigns focus on “regular guys and girls.” The re-launch also geared its product toward a new audience – a younger rock and roll crowd. Recently, Ray Ban hosted a photography exhibit of modern-day musicians wearing the Wayfarer frame. The exhibit featured photos shot by famed photographer Mick Rock, as well as photos of classic bands shot by others. A quick look at the figures proves that these new strategies have worked out fantastically for the company. Today, Ray Ban sells approximately 12 million units per year (split between sunglasses and eyewear). This accounts for between thirteen and fourteen percent of total sales for Luxicotta, making it one of their most profitable brands.
The strategies being implemented by Luxicotta have also helped to increase brand awareness. As of 2000, Ray Ban was listed at number 40, with an estimated retail volume of $300 million in the WWD Top 100 most recognizable brands. In 2003, Ray Ban moved up to number 34, with an estimated retail volume of $378.5 million. In 2006, Ray Ban was listed at number 5 in WWD’s Top 100 most recognizable accessory brands.
All in all, it seems that the Wayfarer and Ray Ban itself have always been a large part of the fashion industry that will continue weaving its way in and out of style for years to come.
(sources cited in hard copy)

Text Block #5

I thought the concept of “Mythologies” was very interesting. I particularly was drawn to the mini essay about plastics. I like the way the author describes plastic as the universal material that really has the ability to do and replicate almost any shape, form, texture, etc. I also felt the way the author spoke about plastic as a ‘disgraced material’ was a very interesting insight into the realm of materials. Until now I had really never thought about how industrial plastic is, and how unnatural it really looks (especially in its available colours). I disagree, however, that plastic is ‘disgraced’ because it should be celebrated for its unique properties – the forms it can be shaped into, the strength it has, etc. I understand that most materials are celebrated for their innate natural beauty (such as furs, woods, metals), but I don’t think that plastic should necessarily be considered a disgrace just because it is not natural.

In regards to plastic being so unnatural, I thought the author should have mentioned the environmental factors of producing plastic, especially since he/she was trying to describe plastic as a disgraced material. This article I found from the New York Times discusses the overuse of plastic by today’s designers. It is an important thing to think about because plastic really isn’t as recyclable as most people believe it to be:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/style/tmagazine/26plastic.html

The other article, “The Uncommon Life of Common Objects” also really resonated with me. I particularly liked that the author began with the short anecdote about her son’s fascination with having his own desk while staying in a beach house. I know it is not really the focus of the article, but I can definitely relate to how I felt the first time I stayed at a hotel. It was really a marvel to have a desk, stocked with pads of paper and pens and pencils and anything you could ever need. Anyway, I liked that the author focused on the illusive nature of defining the desk, and how different everyone’s interpretations of a ‘desk’ are. It felt like the author was getting at the fact that a desk can really be anything, and does not necessarily mean sitting on a chair at a table.

I was particularly intrigued by the idea of the soft office mentioned by the author, so I found an article that further explains the concept:
http://www.designmuseum.org/design/hella-jongerius
Not surprisingly, she has been a part of Droog Design. The article is basically an interview of Jongerius, and provides some interesting insight into her thought process.

Finally, I was interested to check out the work of Tom Newhouse, mainly because the author explained he had been working at these ideas for so many years. I found a description about his work at Herman Miller, which is pretty interesting:
http://www.hermanmiller.com/CDA/SSA/Designer/0,,a10-c80-b22,00.html

Text Block #4

I thought that this article was pretty interesting, mainly because I really related to what the author was talking about. I too feel that humans are naturally drawn to maps, and the art of map-making. There is something somewhat enjoyable about planning out your own system of mapping an area, and drawing out all of the defining characteristics to make sure it is easily understood. The first article that I found in relation to this is about the evolution of the New York subway map.
(http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/03/nyregion/thecity/03maps.html?ref=thecity&pagewanted=all)
The article highlights all of the different maps that the city has gone through, and what worked/what didn't work about each of them. It was really interesting to see all of the extremely different interpretations of the subway system because each of them were essentially mapping the same information.
I then found a second article in the New York Times about 'mapping on the run.'
(http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/09/weekinreview/08basic.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)
It basically talks about the impact of global warming/shifting techtonic plates, and how they affect the world's landscape year by year. It also notes that until recently, the outline of the earth's major land masses were never changed drastically. It then explains that now cartographers really have to update their maps continually because the earth's geography is changing at such a rapid pace.
The last article I found was more about artistic mapping/graphic design.
(http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/09/books/review/Heller-t.html)
The author discusses Massimo Vignelli, both in terms of his contribution to the New York subway map and in his graphic/furniture design pursuits. Other famous graphic designers are also discussed for their contributions to type, image, etc. This does not necessarily relate directly to mapping, but it says something about the way that graphics/type/symbols can be used to convey different levels of meaning.