Copyright 1972 Charles and Ray Eames Office
Q: What is your definition of "Design," Monsieur Eames?
A: One can describe design as a plan for arranging elements to accomplish a particular purpose.
Q: Is Design an expression of art?
A: I would rather say it's an expression of purpose. It may, if it is good enough, later be judged as art.
Q: Is Design a craft for industrial purposes?
A: No. But, Design may be a solution to some industrial problems.
Q: What are the boundaries of Design?
A: What are the boundaries of problems?
Q: Is Design a discipline that concerns itself with only one part of the environment?
A: No.
Q: Is it a method of general expression?
A: No. It is a method of action.
Q: Is Design a creation of an individual?
A: No, because to be realistic, one must always recognize the influence of those that have gone before.
Q: Is Design a creation of a group?
A: Very often.
Q: Is there a Design ethic?
A: There are always Design constraints, and these often imply an ethic.
Q: Does Design imply the idea of products that are necessarily useful?
A: Yes, even though the use might be very subtle.
Q: Is it able to cooperate in the creation of works reserved solely for pleasure?
A: Who would say that pleasure is not useful?
Q: Ought form to derive from the analysis of function?
A: The great risk here is that the analysis may be incomplete.
Q: Can the computer substitute for the Designer?
A: Probably in some special cases, but usually the computer is an aid to the Designer.
Q: Does Design imply industrial manufacture?
A: Not necessarily.
Q: Is Design used to modify an old object through new techniques?
A: This is one kind of Design problem.
Q: Is Design used to fit up an existing model so that it is more attractive?
A: One doesn't usually think of Design in this way.
Q: Is Design an element of industrial policy?
A: If Design constraints imply an ethic and if industrial policy includes ethical principle, then yes; Design is an element in an industrial policy.
Q: Does the creation of Design admit constraint?
A: Design depends largely on constraints.
Q: What constraints?
A: The sum of all constraints. Here is one of the few effective keys to the design problem: the ability of the designer to recognize as many of the constraints as possible, his willingness and enthusiasm for working within these constraints; the constraints of price, of size, of strength, of balance, of surface, of time and so forth. Each problem has its own peculiar list.
Q: Does Design obey laws?
A: Aren't constraints enough?
Q: Are there tendencies and schools in Design?
A: Yes, but these are more a measure of human limitations than of ideals.
Q: Is Design ephemeral?
A: Some needs are ephemeral. Most Designs are ephemeral.
Q: Ought Design to tend towards the ephemeral or towards permanence?
A: Those needs and Designs that have a more universal quality tend toward relative permanence.
Q: How would you define yourself with respect to a decorator? an interior architect? a stylist?
A: I wouldn't.
Q: To whom does design address itself: to the greatest number? to the specialists or the enlightened amateur? to a privileged social class?
A: Design addresses itself to the need.
Q: After having answered all these questions do you feel you have been able to practice the profession of "Design" under satisfactory conditions, or even optimum conditions?
A: Yes.
Q: Have you been forced to accept compromises?
A: I don't remember ever being forced to accept compromises, but I have willingly accepted constraints.
Q: What do you feel is the primary condition for the practice of Design and for its propagation?
A: The recognition of need.
Q: What is the future of Design?