Charles and Ray Eames are two of the most well-known names in the world of design. This week we watched ‘Eames: The Architect and the Painter’ which took us on a deep dive into the couple's life. The film focussed less on their work and more on their personal lives, but it presented some interesting things to consider.
The first thing that struck me was the response of the interviewees to the style of their office. They spoke of how when they first walked into the space they were struck by how unstructured it was and said it was strikingly different from other offices they had worked in. We are lucky to have a studio space at GSA that we can adapt and use however we want. I have always felt that the ability to adapt your workspace to whatever suits your current task helps creativity. We will often tape up paper to the walls and write down ideas and concepts, and being able to see what everyone around us is working on is so helpful and creates a good environment to work in. The interviewee's surprise at this style of working makes me assume that when the Eames Office was opened in the 1940s, it was uncommon.
One study found that the most creative work was produced when there was lots of freedom and encouragement for creativity, and not a harsh analysis of fresh ideas. Varied and plentiful resources were also shown to benefit creative thinking and it was also shown to be beneficial to work within groups of people that were ‘supportive, trusting, and receptive to new ideas, but also willing to constructively challenge each other’s ideas’.
I think that the PDE MEng4 studio and group could certainly be described as above, and I know everyone feels that we all benefit from one another.
The other point that struck me was the treatment of Ray Eames. Ray was consistently considered to be contributing less to their designs than Charles. A TV interview was shown where the (female) presenter joked about how Ray should be letting Charles lead the interview and that he would need to explain the design, with an insinuation that she wouldn’t understand. It shocked me to see a female presenter being so openly sexist to a woman that had achieved so much, at a time when women did still not have the same opportunities as men.
It makes me think how lucky I am to be in this industry now, and not 50 years ago. I also wonder how many other famous designs should be attributed to women, but instead, men were famed for them. It is something that was a horrible symptom of the time and thankfully we have mostly moved on from that… for the most part.
An interesting discussion began after we watched the film about why Eames products are considered brilliant. Why are their designs studied in universities over say Vladimir Kagan, who I have previously written a post on? I much prefer Kagan's work to Eames, however, the latter is far more influential within the world of design, but why? I appreciate the work of Charles and Ray Eames and don’t disagree with learning about them, but what makes their work so enviable that a secondhand piece it is worthy of a three-and-a-half thousand dollar price tag. I don’t know, and I think that it is possibly both the best and worst part of design.
More about how your work environment effects your creativity: https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/how_your_work_environment_influences_your_creativity
Comments