Dun Laoghaire Institute of Art, Design and technology
Design Culture
Design … was defined as good- in a moral
as well as an aesthetic sense.
The term appeared everywhere in the 1950s.
Olwen Wymer
N00172847
30/11/18
This essay is entirely my own work except where cited and has not already been submitted for an award from this or any other educational institution. Signed______________
“Good design happens when corporations care about design and designers care about users. Bad design results from ignorance, poor socioeconomic resources, and skewed professional priorities”. (Grudin 46-54)
Good design, by definition, is market orientated. It should be affordable both to produce on a commercial level and to buy as a user. David Granick, in his book ‘Slavick Review’, states: “Good product design is one which maximises the difference between the costs and benefits. Thus cost-benefit analysis is the proper framework of analysis” (Granick 584-586) In essence, to put it simply, Good design is based on human necessity. It is aimed to make life easier and with this pared back ideology came a new, pared back aesthetic. Each object within this era is task based. However, while functionality may have been the primary objective, true examples of good design aimed to appeal in more ways than just the logical, functional side of the object; the way the object appeared, the way it felt to the touch, the way it appealed to the mind. Along with these considerations came new considerations as to the best way to create the object and produce them. Norman Bel Geddes wrote in Horizons: “Far sighted manufacturers are eager to incorporate good design in their products: Good design offers new advertising opportunities. Good design increases sales appeal in any object. Good design instills a pride of ownership which increases the value of the piece. . . . Good design adds length of life to an object because it takes longer to tire of it. Good design tends towards further simplification of manufacturing processes and hence to economies in production. Good design improves the merit of the product.” (Hiesinger and Marcus 176-177) This opinion was contested by many in the 1950s however and Good design was defined by the New York Museum of modern art as “a thorough merging of form and function.” This ideology eliminated unnecessary ornamentation and favoured a more simplified aesthetic.
Two designers who lost successfully summed up this ideology in their work were Charles and Ray Eames. Charles and Ray Eames were a duo of two designers, married to each other, who were, essentially, the first designers whose work came close to the more multidisciplinary approach that many designers take on today. They were not limited to one medium or style; instead, they limited themselves to creating objects which were beautiful in their base functionality as well as in their aesthetic form and craftsmanship. Their designs were modern but pared back, both both sophisticated and beautiful and also very simple and were also a satisfactory combination of playful and functional. Another factor which makes them perfect exemplars of the good design era is their ability to understand the mechanics behind their creations and in this way to realise new and innovative techniques and ideas which made their designs easier and more affordable to produce. One example of this is their use of plywood. Plywood would previously have been used in a rougher sense; it would certainly not have been considered a material indicative of good design or of slick aesthetic. However, Charles and Ray Eames recognised the potential in ply to create something sturdy, smooth and mass-manufaturable. This new, honest approach to materials was another key characteristic of good design at the time. The idea of something that was cheap to produce, sturdy, lightweight and visually appealing was refreshing and exciting. Charles Eames had a deep understanding of the mechanics behind his furniture and it’s construction and did not believe in hiding the joins and bolts that held it together. His designs took on an exposed, raw look that celebrated the technology behind it. He said: “thinking of how a chair looks comes pretty far down on the list of things I worry about when designing. I only think about how they look in relation to how they are doing their job. They must be comfortable- comfortable for the kind of use they’re going to get.” (Hiesinger and Marcus 180)
From very early on in his career as a designer, Charles Eames could see a problem; good design was not accessible to the public. One example of this could be seen in the Eames Lounge Chair. (Fig 1.) This remains, arguably, the duos best known pieces. It is also one of their least accessible in it’s luxurious appearance and exorbitant price tag. Designed in 1956 for the film maker Billy Wilder, the Eames chair was described by Charles Eames as an updated version of the old English club chair. It is made from folded rosewood plywood and black, down filled leather cushions on an abolished aluminium base. The point of difference in this club chair, however, was it’s definitive sense of lightness and that the combination of the chair, the ottoman and the smooth and appealing deign gave it a feeling of not being fixed or weighed down. The Eameses wanted their chair to have the “warm receptive look of a well-used first baseman’s mitt.” (eamesoffice.com) It is popularly generalised as the worlds most comfortable chair. Eames used the same technique of moulding wood in his later chair designs. These were less luxurious than the lounge chair and more designed to be a side chair for general household use. However, Charles encountered the same problem when he realised that the best consumer price that he could get for this chair was $75 which was unrealistic for an object to be distributed to the masses.
Fig 1: Eames Lounge Chair
Perhaps the Eames design that we would, even unwittingly, be most familiar with in everyday life, would be their polyester model (Fig 2.) which dates back to 1949. This model catered to brand new needs; the 50s saw a huge rise in office and civic buildings and with this came an obvious need for office furniture. This furniture needed to be cheap to produce and to buy as a consumer, it needed to be stackable, it needed to be both light and also durable and it needed to be easily transported. The polyester model was originally designed to be made from 100% metal but when the time came for production, the technology had progressed enough to allow for plastic pieces instead. This was an interesting step away from previous era’s obsessions with monumentality in structures and permanency and it also allowed for easy use of colour. The structure of the chairs themselves was actually not unlike previous designs ( like that of the bent plywood model) although the polyester model was by it’s very nature worlds apart in terms of exclusivity and prices. They were also different in that they were designed not as pieces to be noticed but as anonymous, functional objects which blended into their surroundings. This allowed for large quantities of them to be packed into spaces without compromising a feeling of air and space and was only possible due to their smooth design. This was truly indicative of the era and, as it turns out, enduring, as we still base much of our office or educational institution furniture roughly off these designs today. It is the versatility of the design of the Eamses’ chairs that sets them apart from those of other designers of the time. They would be appropriate in any number of situations or surroundings and will always stand out as examples of clean, functional design that serves a definite purpose while maintaining the aesthetic values of their era. “The Eamses’ furniture was at the outset limited to home consumption, and although this was reversed in the 50s and today only a small percentage goes into homes, the fact remains that it travels more easily between home and office than that of any designer I know”. (McCoy 28)
Fig 2. Eames Polyester Chairs
Charles and Ray Eames were also heavily involved in the Case Study House programme established by the editor of Arts & Architecture magazine, John Entenza in 1945 which aimed to: “at least make a beginning in the gathering of that mass material that must eventually result in what we know as ‘house – post war’.” (Friedman 171) The project was supported by both the magazine and the manufactures of the products that were chosen to be used in the resulting houses. Eight houses were created overall by seven different architectural teams: J.R Davidson, Spaulding, Neutra, Eero Saarinen, William Wurster, Ralph Rapson and Eames. The house created by Charle and Ray Eames was number 8 and arguably the best known of the whole project. Like the other houses in the program, the Eames house was designed to be a functional pleasant, space but also to serve as somewhat of a showcase of the new construction methods and use of materials could be used to create a low cost, modern home that would be easy to reproduce. America was very much still recovering after the destruction of WW2 and Eames wanted to produce products that would be practical and affordable for all those affected. Charles Eames collaborated with Eero Saarinen on his contribution and aimed to create a home that he and Ray could live and work in. (Fig.3) The basic ideology of this program resonates with the ideology of the Swedish multinational company IKEA which has been the largest furniture retailer in the world since 2008. “At IKEA we have an approach called Democratic Design, where every product we make needs to succeed in terms of form, function, sustainability, quality and price.” (A Force for Good Design) IKEA consistently works to make it’s products functional, practical and aesthetically accessible as possible while always being mindful of price. The designers work very closely with suppliers to ensure that the products are as affordable as possible without compromising quality.
Fig 3. Eames House
Fig 4. IKEA chair
The post World War 2 climate saw a shortage in hard wood and other materials which furniture would typically have been manufactured from and this saw many designers, not just Eames, move away from more conventional materials and toward what was readily available: steel, aluminium and ply wood. Ernest Race was a British designer who entered into furniture design in the wake of World War 2 after responding to an advert placed in the paper by engineer Noel Jordan who recognised the potential for profit in a post war climate by designing furniture for those materials. Race and Jordan founded Ernest Race LTD in 1945. Race was the chief designer and Jordan was the managing director. The first of Race’s designs was the The BA3 dining chair (Fig 5.) and it was a huge success from the get go. It was a showpiece at the1946 Britain Can Make It exhibition. The BA3 was a cast aluminium upholstered dining chair. The aluminium that was used was taken from redundant warplanes and the upholstery is said to have been made from pieces of parachutes. The 1951 Race catalogue stated “By the use of an upholstered seat and back, the coldness often associated with metal furniture has been eliminated” (Ernest Race: An English Eccentric in Modernist Design.) Race was very aware of the spaces for which he was designing his furniture and favoured less bulky pieces which lent itself well to the materials he was constricted to initially . Approximately a quarter million of the BA3 chairs were made and distributed between the years 1945 and 1969. The success of this design led to large government orders and, subsequently, to Race being asked to design for the 1951 Festival of Britain terraces. The result of this was the ‘Sprinkbok’ and the ‘Antelope’ chairs which were to be used as outdoor seating at the Festival and they were also used for the same purpose at the1958 World’s Fair in Brussels.
Fig 5. Race BA3 Dining Chair
The Antelope chair (Fig 6.) was comprised of a moulded ply wood seat and quite delicate steel rods making up the back and legs. The four legs end in ball feet which was indicative of the event for which it was designed in that the world fair that year had a specific science theme and many of the structures on display had the appearance of atomic structures. The chair is entirely optically non intrusive and the delicacy of the materials gives it a graceful sense which could only serve to quietly compliment its surroundings. Originally, the seat would have been painted yellow while the steel rods were coated in a white enamel but after the festival are found that demand called for other colour options. The seat had four holes drilled in it for drainage in an outdoor setting. The 'Springbok' chair was also designed for the Festival of Britain and has many similarities to the Antelope. Race designed both the Antelope and the Springbok to be highly durable for potential use as outdoor seating but he also wanted people to use them as indoor chairs. The seat and back of the Springbok is made of springs which were coated in PVC and painted one of a few colour options. The thin steel frame and legs with the ball feet makes it possible for both of these chairs to be easily stacked and stored. The materials, design and process used by Race in the design and construction of these chairs make them an apt example of good design and there are blatant similarities between his mentality surrounding his projects and that of Charles and Ray Eames.
Fig 6. The Antelope Chair
Good design was so much more than just an aesthetic; it was a fresh and honest approach to materials that valued the consumer and honoured the functionality of the object. At the time, the materials were largely situation based and the product of a post war climate but the utilitarian approach to design is one that lives on through a huge percentage of todays furniture manufacturers. “Good Design” is good for everyone; not just one person along the line of production and not just for the consumer.