Analysis of Creative Illumination within the Eames Design Process

RUNNING HEAD: ANALYSIS OF CREATIVE ILLUMINATION WITHIN THE EAMES DESIGN PROCESS

by

RICHARD CLARKSON

Analysis of Creative Illumination within the Eames Design Process by

Richard Clarkson

ANALYSIS OF CREATIVE ILLUMINATION WITHIN THE EAMES DESIGN PROCESS

RICHARD CLARKSON

Abstract

Designing then, in terms of chess, is rather like playing with a board that has no divisions into cells, has pieces that can be invented and redefined as the game proceeds and rules that can change their effects as moves are made.

Even the object of the game is not defined at the outset and may change as the game wears on. (Lawson B. , 2004, p. 20)

An exploration of the underlying design process of the fundamental idea generation and problem identification procedures used to elicit creative illumination in industrial design. I plan to use the findings from this paper to better understand where the design process starts both in design education and practice-based industry situations. I will utilise the iconic chair design case studies of Eames furniture to articulate my findings and provide analysis of each major framework I explore.

This thesis involves powerful ideas such as design motivation, and at its core, questions of why we design. The aim of this paper is not to formulate or model the design processes, but rather to isolate certain elements and analyse them according to different design theorists. The motivation for this paper is personal, however I hope that the discussion here will help others, primarily those in education, to gain a deeper understanding of what makes up creative illumination.

Key words: creative illumination, design process, Charles & Ray Eames, design thinking, Vitra

ANALYSIS OF CREATIVE ILLUMINATION WITHIN THE EAMES DESIGN PROCESS

RICHARD CLARKSON

This paper is born from a personal struggle of trying to better understand the design process and how best to begin it. In my first year of University the design papers often consisted of very constructed projects to enable students to learn specific skill sets and knowledge bases. In my second year, students, myself included, quickly developed a craving for more open-ended briefs as the briefs remained relatively confined. In the final year the project briefs open right out and suddenly the students, who had been dreaming of open briefs for years, find themselves at a loss as to how to begin the initial phase, let alone direct it to a point of clarity. Watson calls this initial phase the ‘creative illumination,’ a rather poetic but extremely fitting tittle (Watson, 1974, p. iv).

The first section involves a brief analysis of the chair as a designed object and a condensed history of Charles and Ray Eames’s work. The second section of this paper is a short introduction to the history of design thinking; the process, development and application of techniques. I touch on the design process as a whole and then focus on the initial spark of creative illumination. In the third section I use Eames chair designs as examples to explore and synthesise three design theorists’ frameworks and methodologies that relate to creative illumination.

ANALYSIS OF CREATIVE ILLUMINATION WITHIN THE EAMES DESIGN PROCESS

RICHARD CLARKSON

Part I – a brief analysis of the Chair and History of Eames designs.

“Did you think of the Eames chair in a flash? He replied, Yes, in a sort of 30year flash” (Demetrios, 2001, p. 35) The 1940’s began to bring a change in the perception of the chair as an icon, and as a metaphor for the actual designer. This is perhaps due to the divorcing of the chair from the original furniture piece to that of an art object by Museums and Galleries (Massey, 2011, p. 71). Many of the chair designs done by Charles and Ray Eames from 1939 – 1958 helped to bring this change in perception When Ray died in 1988 she gifted over 750,000 images and vast amounts of documentation work from the Eames Office to the Library of Congress, generating an enormous catalogue of their processes, methodologies and thinking (Albrecht, 1997, p. 45). This, combined with other research efforts from individuals such as Eames Demetrius (2001) and commercial bodies such as Vitra (Vegesack, Dunas, & Schwartz-Clauss, c1996), have helped to create a detailed research database from which I can properly explore the ideas and theories behind each of the pieces – more so than most other designer’s works. In addition to the large theoretical and scholarly database, I also have access to scale models of the chairs in the form of the Vitra Miniature Models Collection at the School of Design - Victoria University of Wellington (VUW). The collection at VUW consists of 98 models of which 11 are Eames designs, in itself an indication of the magnitude of influence the Eames had on chair design history.

Figure 1. –Vitra Miniature Models of Eames Chairs. (Photo by Richard Clarkson)

A brief history of the Eames chairs starts with the collaboration between Charles Eames and Eero Saarinen on the design of the Kleinhans Chair 1939, a single direction bent plywood chair (Demetrios, 2001, p. 35). They continued their work together with the Organic Chair in their winning

ANALYSIS OF CREATIVE ILLUMINATION WITHIN THE EAMES DESIGN PROCESS

RICHARD CLARKSON

entries of plywood furniture submitted for the 1940 Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) competition in New York (Byars, 1996) (Baker & Baker, 2011). The mass manufacture of these pieces was ‘fraught with difficulties,’ so much so that Saarinen left to pursue other projects. Operating with similar design ideologies Ray soon became both a romantic partner and a modernist-design driven creative partner. As World War II broke out, political requirements of the time necessitated minimization of input resources and chair designing was put on hold. However, the war brought with it new opportunities in designing and manufacturing bent ply splints and later aircraft parts for the US Navy (Mehlhose & Martin, c2009). These military contracts provided valuable access to new developments both in production of ply, more advanced synthetic glues and new technology (Kirkham, 1995, p. 212). As military contracts increased, Charles and Ray brought in colleagues from various disciplines to create The Plywood Group. Soon after this group transferred their knowledge of Ply bending to meet Charles’s determination to create mass producible, single-body, complex curved-shell chairs. The group carried out various experiments such as Ray’s 1941 Plywood Sculpture and Pilot Seat experiments later the following year. Finally in 1946 the group managed to partially realize Charles’s dream [the chair was not yet single bodied] with the design and manufacture of The Plywood Group Furniture Collection (1945-46) including the iconic Lounge Chair Wood (LCW) and Dining chair Metal (DCM).

“Everything hangs on something else… The Organic Chair on the Kleinhans Chair, the Splint on the sculpture, the sculpture on the Organic Furniture, the LCW on it all” (Demetrios, 2001, p. 107) By 1965 the Eames office achieved Charles’s creative need for complex curves in wood, fiberglass and wire mesh (Lidwell & Manacsa, 2009, p. 106), perfectly timed to meet post war America’s emerging middle class who desired luxury or ‘good design’ at affordable prices.

Upon close inspection of the Vitra Miniatures I found evidence of the Eames design process developing with each chair, the screws and rubber pads informing the DKR wire mesh chair, the form evolving with each new material iteration. I explored each model from the DAX to No.670 and 671, the Organic Armchair to the LCW. I was able to see and touch the qualities that evolved along the ‘Eames chair bloodline.’ When photographing the models I found myself very naturally and effortlessly ordering them chronologically, not because of my knowledge of them, but because there is a visual and tactile flow that is impossible to ignore.

ANALYSIS OF CREATIVE ILLUMINATION WITHIN THE EAMES DESIGN PROCESS

RICHARD CLARKSON

Figure 2. –Vitra Miniature Model of 1945 Lounge Chair Wood LCW (Photo by Richard Clarkson)

The Eames Chair as Charles himself put it, came about in a “30 year flash” (Demetrios, 2001, p. 35).

Made up of many sparks of varying intensity over the 30 years these make up the moments of creative illumination. When considering the Eames design process over a 30 year time scope, it permits detailed analysis of different sections and stages, and lends itself perfectly to a comparative approach, particularly for establishing clear points of creative illumination from different perspectives.

ANALYSIS OF CREATIVE ILLUMINATION WITHIN THE EAMES DESIGN PROCESS

RICHARD CLARKSON

Part II – an initial exploration of the design process and design methodology.

The Design process is a rather unique process; it involves a combination of systematic logic and intuitive reasoning (Raye, 2009, p. 35). It can be interpreted from many different angles, scales and levels. It is interconnected both within itself and with other processes. I find one of the most interesting traits of the design process to be that it is impossible to perfectly rationalise within a single model.

There exists a long history of those who have tried, with varying degrees of failure; each an unrealistic simplification, absurd abstraction or impossible application. However, these attempts have not been in vain, as each new framework brings new knowledge and perspective on design thinking and adds to the holistic conversation (Lawson B. , 2004, p. 17). Over time, this conversation has evolved from what was at one point called design methodology, and arguably still is (Cross, 1984, p. 307), to that of the study of design thinking (Lawson B. , 2004, p. 11). In its entirety it has the capacity to truly embody the design process to the degree that a stand-alone model would never be able to reach.

The history of design thinking is much too vast a topic for any real discussion or in-depth exploration in this paper; hence I will simply cover some key ideas and pitfalls relevant to this research. The following are the core elements I have developed throughout my research of the design process: firstly it is generally considered to be solution focused as opposed to the problem focused approach that suits scientific research (Cross, 2006, p. 57). Secondly it’s based on the creation of concepts which are analysed for best fit of the problem criteria (Aspelund, 2010, p. 3). The most suitable of these concepts are then further developed until a final design solution is reached and the solution is communicated to the client in an appropriate format (Bonollo, 2010, pp. 16-17). Thirdly, and most frequently agreed upon, is that it is a complex process (Lawson B. , 2004, p. 20).

Quoted in the abstract of this paper is Brian Lawson’s comparison between the design process and a game of chess. This analogy perfectly describes the complexities of the design process as a problem solving procedure. This complex nature is one of the key reasons that those in the past those who have attempted to deconstruct and formulate the process have been met with high degrees of counter evidence and been bombarded by powerful challenges to their formula (Lange, 2001) (Cross, 2007). An example is the RIBA and Goel models for design as a sequence of activities:

ANALYSIS OF CREATIVE ILLUMINATION WITHIN THE EAMES DESIGN PROCESS

RICHARD CLARKSON

Figure 3. - RIBA and Goel Models (Lawson B. , 2004, p. 14) However theorists such as Brian Lawson are quick to disregard these two models as being over simplified and out of date for modern design (Lawson B. , 1990), or fail because they are “ponderous statements of the blindingly obvious” - Bruce Archer (Cross, 1984, p. 64). We might group these models into ‘first generation systematic models’ originating from engineering techniques.

Second generation models aimed to better accommodate for flexible and interactive nature of the design process. This approach is embodied by Ken Wallace’s (1991) Bubble Design Process Model (Ashby & Johnson, 2010).

Figure 4. - Ken Wallace (1991) the Bubble Design Process (Ashby & Johnson, 2010, p. 35).

ANALYSIS OF CREATIVE ILLUMINATION WITHIN THE EAMES DESIGN PROCESS

RICHARD CLARKSON

This approach allows for interlinking relationships between the design process elements but in many ways is too abstract to be of any real use or application, perhaps due to these models being a product of reasoning that is alien to design (Cross, 1984, p. 384). There are various other diagrams and models of the process such as: problem-solving process that involves rational-analytic procedure and emotional –intuitive procedure based on work by F.G. Winter (Heufler, 2004, p. 73), Belsky’s Design Management Formula (Belsky, 2010, p. 14) and numerous others. However, each seems to fall to one side of a useable format; for example too simple and inflexible or too complex and abstract. Although almost all of these models are useful it is evident that none can clearly explain or truly represent the creative process in a usable format, and perhaps that is due to the underlying approaches of these models.

Following a simple step-by-step process does not lead to inspiring or even apt, designs. For a more detailed view we must look at the “leap of insight”, the essential spark of creative illumination. (Watson, 1974, p. iv) Watson identifies the need for a different approach with focus on creative illumination and I agree with this. We can define creative illumination as being the

By exploring creative illumination it allows for a deeper understanding of the process as a whole by identifying the fundamentals of the process. Rather than analyzing individual models of the design process this approach suits an exploration of them within the context of their fundamental methodology, the thinking, arguments and justifications behind the models, those who created them and those who endorsed them. Upon focusing my research efforts in this area I found a lot of useful literature, however three theorists’ names in particular repeatedly appear wherever creative illumination is discussed. These three names were Nigel Cross, Bryan Lawson, and Harold Nelson.

In the next section I explore the specific creative illumination frameworks and ideas of Cross, Lawson, and Nelson and explain them with Eames examples. Each has their own preference of models, terminology and justifications, all of which are necessary to properly synthesise their interpretations of the Eames design process.

ANALYSIS OF CREATIVE ILLUMINATION WITHIN THE EAMES DESIGN PROCESS

RICHARD CLARKSON

Part III – an analysis of creative illumination within the Eames designs process according to three key theorists.

Case Study A - Nigel Cross Defines Creative Illumination as: the creative leap or sudden mental insight that expands the frame of reference (Cross, 2006, pp. 84-85).

Figure 5 & 6. – Breakdown of design procedure by Bruce Archer 1965 (Cross, 1984, p. 64)

Using the design models and frameworks that Cross analyses and develops we can reverse engineer the Eames Design process as Cross might see it. Cross’s interpretations provide a traditional breakdown of the design process that has evolved over many years The first Model that I want to explore is a 1965 systematic method of design discussed by Bruce Archer in Cross’s Developments in Design Methodology. Archer compares the above model to a creative sandwich made up of objective and systematic bread that always contains a creative layer in the center. He also describes how the designer frequently overlaps different sections and returns to earlier stages whenever problems are encountered in the process (Cross, 1984). We can assume that the Training section would be derived from Charles’s education as an architect and Ray’s as an artist/painter. We can select an obvious Brief within the time scope as being the MoMA Organic Designs in Home Furnishings Competition which Charles Eames and Eero Saarinen collaborated on entering.

ANALYSIS OF CREATIVE ILLUMINATION WITHIN THE EAMES DESIGN PROCESS

RICHARD CLARKSON

- The Programming and Data Collection are part of the Analytical phase, where observation, measurement and inductive reasoning are required. This section involves a base knowledge from an earlier chair designed for the Kleinhans Music Hall in 1939 and a desire to create complex curves from plywood. (Demetrios, 2001, pp. 35-36).

- The next 3 stages are Analysis, Synthesis and Development. This is what Archer claims to be the meat of the sandwich as shown in Fig.05. This is the Creative phase which requires involvement, judgment and reasoning. In terms of the case study example this would be Charles and Rays’ various material experiments, prototypes and early chair designs. In the larger scheme, the original solution to the brief, the Organic Chair 1941, now becomes a parameter in the Analysis section. In an Interview by Virginia Smith in 1977 Charles states, “The Organic show was more a kind of a statement of principle.” (Demetrios, 2001, p. 40) This is also where the Plywood Leg Splints designed for the US Navy in 1942 and Ray’s Plywood sculpture of the same year would feature in the process.

- The final phase is the Executive phase and is made up of the communication stage and has Solution as its output. For Charles even finished chairs rarely ever passed beyond this point, especially true of the Eames Lounger which underwent several design updates many years after its initial manufacture (Demetrios, 2001, p. 172). This is the first instance where the model needs adjusting to accommodate for the Eames design process. The solution output arrow should have two additional output-to-input arrow one feeding back into development the other feeding back into Experience.

However this model doesn’t satisfy the dynamic nature of design, for instance the design of Various Eames chairs overlapped which cannot be shown in such a model. In any case it was fundamentally important in shaping Cross’s later model of creative strategy, as shown in fig.06. In the background of Archer’s model he identified that design solutions come from problems made up of constraints derived from the pressure(s) of a need, “thus design begins with a need.” This problem-solution relationship is the first important element. The other element which Cross discuses in more depth in Designerly ways of Knowing is the importance of creative illumination that Archer regarded as being central to the design process and indeed features in the second phase of his model – in the meat layer of his design sandwich.

In Cross’s Model the two elements come together more clearly. He explains that early in the design process there is often a moment or point at which a creative leap seems to occur. He goes on to suggest that perhaps this leap is more of a bridging of dynamic and partial models of the problem and the solution.

ANALYSIS OF CREATIVE ILLUMINATION WITHIN THE EAMES DESIGN PROCESS

RICHARD CLARKSON

Figure 7. – Model of Creative Strategy (Cross, 2011, p. 74) “the ‘bridge’ recognizably embodies satisfactory relationships between problem and solution It is the recognition of a satisfactory concept that provides the ‘illumination’ of the creative ‘flash of insight’.

- Thus, in terms of the Eames example, the problem goals become the desire for seamless organic form from seat to backrest.

- The Problem frame is the interpretation of the problem by the designer in this instance it is that there is no existing process for creating single body complex curve shells for use in furniture; here both Charles and Ray skillfully impose their view of the problem clearly and with direction in terms of reasoning and justification of the context i.e. low cost, mass producible furniture.

- The First principles section consists of identifying requirements and desired functions relevant to the problem frame (Cross, 2011, p. 55) thus initially these would be elements such as use of molded plywood [later fiberglass and wire frame], low cost manufacture, comfortable and aesthetically pleasing.

- The Solution Concept consists of the experiments and material trials done by the Charles and Ray in the years leading up the LCW. - The Solution Criteria is the LCW design, and its meeting [or in some views not meeting] of the chair in relation to the initial problem.

Following this set of thinking, we can analyze the LCW to be successful as it relieved the tension between the problem and the solution. Furthermore we can clearly see the connection between

ANALYSIS OF CREATIVE ILLUMINATION WITHIN THE EAMES DESIGN PROCESS

RICHARD CLARKSON

establishment of first principals as being the fundamental base for a bridge of creative illumination as derived by the co-evolution of problem and solution.

ANALYSIS OF CREATIVE ILLUMINATION WITHIN THE EAMES DESIGN PROCESS

RICHARD CLARKSON

Case Study B - Harold Nelson Defines Creative Illumination as: flash of insight or the ‘ah ha!’ experience – explosive appearance of a solution to a design challenge (Nelson & Stolterman, 2003, p. 212).

We must design because we are not perfect. (Nelson & Stolterman, 2003, p.

4) Nelson identifies design foundations and design fundamentals as the first principals and core concepts of design respectively. He inquires about the purpose of designing and lists the following: survive, improve, develop, thrive, evolve, serve others, make something of lasting quality, create something of real consequence, participate in the never-ending genesis. Nelson then goes on to explore motivation for designing as being derived: to control, from necessity, bring order, give meaning, calling – design will, for enlightenment / wisdom, lack of wholeness and to be of service (Nelson & Stolterman, 2003, p. 13). Both of these lists resonate deeply within Eames design ideology. The Eames purpose for designing could be any combination of improve, develop and evolve but the best fit item in my view is “to create something of real consequence.” That Charles and Ray were trying to create a mass-producible object that would fundamentally change how society perceived modern furniture is evidence that there was a deeper purpose than just improvement of the chair. The fact that they achieved this purpose and created something of real consequence is further evidence of that.

Figure 8. – The Alchemy Process (Nelson & Stolterman, 2003, p. 211)

The Alchemy Process is an archaic general design model based more on a metaphor about the design process rather than a systematic breakdown of it. If we refer back to the Eames examples we could presume that the Kleinhans Chair was the not knowing phase, the Organic Chair the knowing phase, the Plywood Leg splints, sculpture and pilot seats the understanding and the LCW the wisdom. We could also assume that the creative illumination that Nelson calls the ‘ah-ha

ANALYSIS OF CREATIVE ILLUMINATION WITHIN THE EAMES DESIGN PROCESS

RICHARD CLARKSON

experience,’ which can be described as a sudden flash of insight might come at either the knowing or understanding phase. (Nelson & Stolterman, 2003, p. 212)

Figure 9. – The Alchemy Process of the Eames Design Process (Nelson & Stolterman, 2003, p. 211)

Nelson Later introduces a more contemporary model of the design process in relation to composition of a design idea. Phrased as ‘parti’ it is the explosive appearance of an encoded solution to a complex design problem. This emersion involves both conscious and sub-conscious thought and takes the form of a somewhat vague ‘liquid’ form, from which the parti can “emerge in a singular moment or in a drizzle of proximate moments with equivalent effect” (Nelson & Stolterman, 2003, p.

212). For the Eames chairs it was a slow drizzle, with various different stages reaching design innovation along the way. This particular model does not seem to suit the Eames design process, but does provide a glimpse of contemporary design thinking.

Figure 10. – Steps in Design Related to Composition (Nelson & Stolterman, 2003, p. 213)

ANALYSIS OF CREATIVE ILLUMINATION WITHIN THE EAMES DESIGN PROCESS

RICHARD CLARKSON

Case Study C - Bryan Lawson Defines Creative Illumination as: dedicated hard work + relaxation time = eureka moment (Lawson B. , 1997, pp. 150-151).

Lawson’s disscusions of creativity in How Designers Think brings forth some compelling ideas about the design process as a specifically creative process, not restricted to design, but a process shared by many human endeavours such as science, law, art and mangement (Lawson B. , 1997, p. 148). Not only that, but an inventive is essentialy independent from the field of the creator using examples of inventions & inventor relationships; for example a muscian invented Kodachrome film, an undertaker invented the automatic telephone and a journalist invented the parking meter. Design and invention are separate entities in the context of the ethics and goals of each, but in terms of creative illumination there are several overlaps and similarites. Charles Eames was educated as an architect and Ray as a painter but both practised in a wide range of design diciplines including; furniture, industrial photography, film, abstraction and many more. Perhaps this is one of the secrets to the success of the Charles and Ray Eames, in that their process of design was versatile enough to elicit creative illumination across a wide range of media. This is important, as many important instances in the Eames design process in the 30 year flash were not restricted to chair designs, but rather types of thinking embodied in different areas.

Figure 11 & 12. - Poincare’s (1924) five stage model of the creative process (Lawson B. , 1990, p. 110)

ANALYSIS OF CREATIVE ILLUMINATION WITHIN THE EAMES DESIGN PROCESS

RICHARD CLARKSON

Poincre’s model for the creative process is made up of five divisions of different thinking phases.

Lawson’s perception is that there is a general concensus that there is up to five phases in the creative process and uses Kneller’s termonology of First insight, preparation, incubation, illumination, and verification.

First insight – a recognition period that identifies the existence of a problem, may last for hours, days, or even years. This is Charles’s drive to create single-body, complex curves in furniture at low cost. Lawson highlights the importance of the formulation of the problem in this phase as a critical element that motivates the other phases of the process. (Lawson B. , 1990, p. 109). There is an interesting relationship here that highlights my difficulty with open briefs mentioned early in this paper.

Charles: Design depends largely on constraints.

Madame L’Amic: What constraints?

Charles: The sum of all constraints… Each problem has its own peculiar list.

Design Q&A Interview 1972 (Demetrios, 2001, p. 168)

This brings forth the idea of the problem as a positive thing in the creative mind, through providing constraints from wich creativity can grow (Lawson B. R., 1994, p. 14) (Belsky, 2010, pp. 8687). This is contrary with arguments for more open briefs in some contemporary design education institutions and supports the idea that closed brief might encourage more creativity than open ones.

Preparation – This is an intense consious thinking process in an attempt to find a soloution to the problem. There are clear examples within the Eames range that match this description, such as Ray’s Ply sculpture and the Navy Splints. Note that there is always a refferal back to the first insight problem.

Incubation – Lawson states that it is common ground among theorists of creativity that the intense preparation is then followed by a relaxtion period to let the idea “sit,” often designers utilise this time to work on other projects (Lawson B. , 1997, p. 153). In this way we can see the connection between the work done for the US Navy as being essential in the creation of many of the Eames Chair.

Illumination – Described as the “sudden emergence of an idea that is often called the ‘eureka’ moment.” It is the result of the incubation period, and the moment where everything fits into place.

I would deem the LCW to be this moment, as it is the first market successful instance that not only

ANALYSIS OF CREATIVE ILLUMINATION WITHIN THE EAMES DESIGN PROCESS

RICHARD CLARKSON

solved the problem posed, but changed the design world irrevocably (Julier, 1993, p. 76) – a trait that Lawson identifies exists in moments of brilliant creativity (Lawson B. , 1997, p. 149).

Verification – This is the testing, elaboration and development of the idea. Perhaps the award of Time Magazines Chair of the Century for the LCW is evidence of the success of this verification.

ANALYSIS OF CREATIVE ILLUMINATION WITHIN THE EAMES DESIGN PROCESS

RICHARD CLARKSON

Conclusions In many ways this paper has followed a design process; perhaps I have become so accustomed with this style of ‘design thinking’ that I apply it subconsciously in non-design areas. In the early phases I was faced with a problem of what to research. I came up with many different topic ideas and evaluated them against my problem. I developed and narrowed my focus until I decided I wanted to explore Eames furniture and the design process but had not yet found a way to merge the two.

Ironically, my moment of creative illumination came when I stumbled upon the very concept of creative illumination in Watson’s quote about a “leap of insight”, the essential spark of creative illumination. (Watson, 1974, p. iv). It became clear that that was the concept I was looking for all along; it was upon that finding that quote that everything began to fit into place for this paper. After significant development and refinement this paper is the designed solution.

I have explored three different theorists’ interpretations of creative illumination within the Eames design process. The aim was never to evaluate them against each other but rather to show three sets of thinking. This way, each reader is able to make their own evaluations of the creative design process, each adding to the conversation of design knowledge and making a much more significant contribution than a single model or evaluation ever could.

ANALYSIS OF CREATIVE ILLUMINATION WITHIN THE EAMES DESIGN PROCESS

RICHARD CLARKSON

Bibliography

Albrecht, D. (1997). The work of Charles and Ray Eames : a legacy of invention. New York: Harry N. Abrams in association with the Library of Congress and the Vitra Design Museum.

Antonelli, P. (c2003). Objects of design, from the Museum of Modern Art . New York: Museum of Modern Art ; Distributed in the U.S. and Canada by D.A.P./Distributed Art Publishers, Inc. Ashby, M., & Johnson, K. (2010). Materials and design : the art and science of material selection in product design. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Aspelund, K. (2010). The design process. New York, NY : Fairchild Books.

Baker, K., & Baker, F. (2011). Modern furniture classics : from 1900 to now. London: Carlton Books.

Belsky, S. (2010). Making ideas happen : overcoming the obstacles between vision and reality. New York: Portfolio.

Best, K. (2010). The fundamentals of design management. Lausanne: AVA Academia ; La Vergne, TN : Distributed in the USA & Canada by Ingram Publisher Services, c2010.

Bonollo, E. (2010). Product design : a course in first principles. Calwell, A.C.T: Dr. E. Bonollo.

Byars, M. (1996). 50 chairs : innovations in design and materials. Hove, U.K: RotoVision.

Couturier, E. (c2010). Talk about design. Paris: Flammarion : distributed in North America by Rizzoli International Pub. Cross, N. (1984). Developments in design methodology. Chichester ; New York: Wiley.

Cross, N. (2006). Designerly ways of knowing. London: Springer.

Cross, N. (2007). From a Design Science to a Design Discipline: Understanding Designerly Ways of Knowing and Thinking. In M. Ralf (Ed.), Design Research Now (pp. 41-54). Basel: Birkh채user.

Cross, N. (2011). Design thinking : understanding how designers think and work. Oxford ; New York: Berg Publishers.

Danto, A. C. (1988). 397 chairs. New York: H.N. Abrams.

Demetrios, E. (2001). An Eames primer / Eames Demetrios. London: Thames & Hudson.

ANALYSIS OF CREATIVE ILLUMINATION WITHIN THE EAMES DESIGN PROCESS

RICHARD CLARKSON

Eames, C., Eames, R., Caplan, R., & Frederick S. Wight Art Gallery. (1976.). Connections, the work of Charles and Ray Eames. Los Angeles: UCLA Art Council.

Fiell, P., & Fiell, C. (2001). Modern furniture classics : postwar to post-modernism. London: Thames & Hudson.

Heufler, G. (2004). Design basics : from ideas to products. (S. M. Zettinig, Trans.) Zurich: Niggli Verlag.

Hinchman, M. (c2009). History of furniture : a global view. New York: Fairchild Books.

Hinrichs, K. (2009). Good design : deconstructing form, function, and what makes design work. 2631. (T. Marks, & M. Porter, Interviewers) Beverly, Mass: Rockport Publishers.

Houseley, L. (c2009). The independent design guide : innovative products from the new generation.

New York: Thames & Hudson.

Jacob, B., & Zec, P. (Eds.). (2010). Design value : a strategy for business success. Essen: Red Dot ; London : Springer [distributor], 2010.

Jones, S. W. (1973). Product design and process selection. London: Butterworth.

Julier, G. (1993). The Thames and Hudson encyclopaedia of 20th century design and designers.

London: Thames and Hudson.

Kirkham, P. (1995). Charles and Ray Eames : designers of the twentieth century. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Kirkham, P., Eidelber, M., Hine, T., Hanks, D. A., & Peatross, C. F. (2006). The Eames lounge chair : an icon of modern design. London: Merrell.

Lange, M. W. (2001). Design semiosis : synthesis of products in the design activity . Stockholm: Dept. of Machine Design, Royal Institute of Technology.

Lawson, B. (1990). How designers think : the design process demystified (2nd ed.). Oxford: Elsevier Architectural Press.

Lawson, B. (1997). How designers think : the design process demystified (3rd ed.). Oxford: Elsevier Architectural Press.

Lawson, B. (2004). What designers know. Boston, MA: Elsevier/Architectural Press.

ANALYSIS OF CREATIVE ILLUMINATION WITHIN THE EAMES DESIGN PROCESS

RICHARD CLARKSON

Lawson, B. R. (1994). Architects are losing out in the professional divide. The Architects' Journal, 199(16), 13-14.

Lidwell, W., & Manacsa, G. (2009). Deconstructing product design : exploring the form, function, usability, sustainability, and commercial success of 100 amazing products. Beverly, Mass: Rockport Publishers.

Margolin, V. (Ed.). (1989). Design discourse : history, theory, criticism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Massey, A. (2011). Chair. London: Reaktion Books.

Mehlhose, A., & Martin, W. (c2009). Modern furniture : 150 years of design. K nigswinter, ermany h.f.ullmann.

Moore, D. J. (2007). Design and the creative process. Clifton Park, N.Y.: Thomson Delmar Learning.

Nelson, H. . (1994). The Necessity of Being ‘Un-Disciplined’ and ‘Out-Of-Control’. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 7(3), 22-29.

Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2003). The design way : intentional change in an unpredictable world : foundations and fundamentals of design competence. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Educational Technology Publications.

Raye, R. (2009). Good design : deconstructing form, function, and what makes design work. (T. Marks, & M. Porter, Interviewers) Beverly, Mass: Beverly, Mass.

Vegesack, A. v., Dunas, P., & Schwartz-Clauss, M. (Eds.). (c1996). 100 masterpieces from the Vitra Design Museum collection. Weil am Rhein: Vitra Design Museum.

Watson, J. D. (1974). The design activity : a pattern for design education. Melbourne: University of Melbourne.

ANALYSIS OF CREATIVE ILLUMINATION WITHIN THE EAMES DESIGN PROCESS

RICHARD CLARKSON

Sketches of Eames furniture by Richard Clarkson

Victoria University of Wellington 2012

School of Architecture and Design Contact:

clarkson.richard.nz@gmail.com

Lecturer:

Margaret Petty

Tutor:

Sarah Caylor

Documentation Blog: http://rcmdi.tumblr.com/