This documentary featured the stories and interviews of Charles and Ray Eames’ colleagues, friends and biographers. The commentary on their lives explained their rise to fame and complimentary design skills, which led them through an array of visual artforms and forever changed design world.
“Never delegate understanding”
The story began by examining how the famous Eames Chair went from a failing project to the “Greatest Design of the 20th Century” – Times Magazine. The form was new, unique and exciting. It aimed to eliminate old fashioned upholstery by using a plywood shell to support the user. However, it simply couldn’t be manufactured with the current technologies of the late 1930s. It is interesting, now, to examine how a different design approach influenced the final product, given the same motivations and brief. They (Charles Eames and Eero Saarinen) began to redesign the concept by starting with the manufacturing instead of the final form. This proved far more successful and also encourages an interlude to the project during WWII when they used bent plywood to improve splint design for wounded soldiers. The bandage holes in the plywood released the tension in the curved wood and stopped it splintering. This was incorporated into the chairs shape where the back met the seat and it was a roaring success. The design has since been massively influential on furniture design; even our plastic studio chairs are reminiscent of the curved shell that Charles Eames is named responsible. Several essays could be written to analyse the iconic chair and the ensuing career in furniture design of Charles and Ray Eames but the interesting point to me is how they turned a failure into a success. A concept that couldn’t be became a triumph. Expanding their process to pursue other products by transferring new technologies showed an ingenious level of development. This is much easier said than done and is something I would like to bare in mind for future design opportunities; when something isn’t working how can the design process change to solve a product problem?
“We don’t do art, we solve problems”
Another interesting point that stuck with after finishing the movie was the unusual relationship that Charles and Ray Eames had and the human relationships that Charles had formed with colleagues through his career. Ray was his second wife, they were married in 1941 and remained married through running their incredibly successful business together, even after Charles almost married another woman. Their complimentary dynamic and individual areas of expertise brought a complete package to the table. Ray had trained with Hans Hoff in New York as a painter and excelled in what we would now call graphic design and colour. Charles heavily relied on her artistic abilities to portray their work desirably to the outside world. Their unique, energetic and humorous self-portrays show a chemistry and a creative connection that is difficult to describe. Other employees at the firm seemed to have a similar connection. The couple surrounded themselves with people who didn’t need explanations to understand their artistic vision or to what they wanted their work to say. I felt somewhat uncomfortable during some of the featured interviews; they wouldn’t have been out of place in a scientology or cult documentary. They spoke of Charles as this handsome and charismatic mentor and for several of them, he was the “most important person” in their lives. Employees submitted to his guidance and gave up any claim to design credits for the chance to work at his company. I am still unsure as to what extent this power over employees was abused. It is extremely difficult in design to distinguish exactly who did what but generally outputs are released under a brand name. However, in this case that was often followed by “designed by Charles Eames”. The questions I asked myself during this film were is this correct and is this fair?
“Take your pleasure seriously”
Looking through the plethora of work that Charles and Ray Eames completed across product design, architecture and cinemaphotography and the teams behind them; it cannot be correct that it was a solo effort. But, is it fair? The ruthless nature of Charles Eames is one of the reasons it’s his name in the history books rather than his employees. Personally, I respect the Eames as visionaries and artists but fail to see why they neglected to give more credit to the designers who contributed to iconic work under their name. Some of Charles’ fame was not alone due to his name being placed on every piece produced. The gender politics of the 1950s, when the Eames first reached a major American customer base with their furniture, was extremely sexist and focused solely on Charles as the creator rather than Ray. Misogynistic TV and news outlets failed to recognise them as equals and cast the charismatic Charles into the spotlight. One particular interview was shown in the movie which showed Ray being patronised by the presenter and Charles trying to explain that they worked together as equals. This was a sad reminder of a reality that is still relevant in today’s society. Neglecting or underselling a woman’s achievements in a male dominated industry is still too common an occurrence. Thankfully, this movie told a complete story and presented them as a item rather than Charles and co.
“We want to make the best for the most for the least.”
The end my review on a slightly happier note, my final take-away from the movie was how astonishing the variety of work they produced was and the clientele that wanted it. The movie showed an evolution throughout their career but a constant desire to bring beautiful things to the greatest number of people. Their ability to visualise all design as one common discipline and see elements such as photography and furniture design as different tools to “manipulate people rather than objects” gave them the unparalleled ability to be unique. To break new ground in one field is amazing, but to do it in several is astounding. Maybe this is why Eames’ employees were blinded by their awe; they were standing so close to the inner workings of the “circus” they couldn’t see past it. They just wanted to be onboard the mad train as it ploughed through the twentieth century; leaving a wake that continues to bob the world of design with its ripples today. It is interesting that Charles’ love of short, visual based movies such as “The Power of Ten” would not be out of place on YouTube today. The short attention span of a millennial could be captured and satisfied by this quick film. And, that Ray’s bright and bold colour palette could decorate the lobby of a new, tech start-up in London tomorrow. Do we like these things because Eames designed them? Or, do we intrinsically enjoy their style of design? Maybe both? Who knows, but it’s certainly food for thought.
“Eventually everything connects.”
Comments