i admire the eames’ simplified approach to design. the modularity and adaptability of their work appeals to me, and part of that is achieved by working within a strict set of guidelines. on first view, these guidelines appear to be restrictive but they are liberating because they keep things simple. it is very consistent with the scandinavian way of looking at design and problem-solving – though the eames’ approach is warmer and it feels more humane. with this thought in mind, i also appreciate the humility and playfulness in their work.

having been familiar with much of the eames’ work for a long time, i finally had a chance to visit their home in the pacific palisades last saturday.

with the exception of a docent and the curator (who were exceedingly gracious and generous with their time), we had the residence to ourselves for about 90 minutes.

standing in the meadow, gazing towards the two structures that form their home and office, one is overtaken by a fleeting moment of joy, there is wonder and beauty in the space that they have created out of this hillside grove: it is comprehensible, peaceful, a home, a laboratory.

the next morning, i wrote to a friend, charlie becker, whom i consider somewhat of an expert on eames.

csk: “it’s hard not to notice the use of common building materials in the eames’ constructions – and, as far as i understand, these choices of building materials play an important role in their approach to design. i like this a lot, and wonder if one of the motivations behind this is that the eames felt that it was important to open up the fields of architecture and design to a wider audience – to make it more affordable and therefore more accessible. more democratic. is this the case? did the eames promote this philosophy? or am i confusing their approach to materials as also representative of their philosophical approach to the societal role of architecture?”

cb: “the eames legacy was very much about democratization, charles was always striving to make their designs the most cost effective, the most available to as many people as possible. it’s a great testament that so many schools, libraries, and offices were outfitted with their furniture. they were definitely not elitist design snobs. as for the house, i’m not sure it was purely their motivation, as the case study program and mandate was developed by john entenza, from arts & architecture magazine. they were one of around three dozen houses designed for it. and that’s about all they did as far as buildings are concerned. i think part of that was frustration with the business of architecture. they focused instead on furniture, films, exhibits, and the like.”

csk: “so, the eames were indeed proponents of the idea that architecture and design should have an expanded role in society and should be, in essence, more affordable. great. i had a feeling that this was the case. the reason why this interests me is i find it a bit sad that as the years go by (and perhaps it is inevitable), the prestige of owning an object designed by eames has only increased, as has the price tag. eames has become exclusive – and i wonder if this is consistent with their original ambitions? i want to know if, in this zealous quest to an own a work designed by eames, people are overlooking an important aspect of eames design?

cb: “the current prices are sadly just a function of the marketplace. the eames’ would not have condoned it.”

to be continued…