This week I continued to experiment with methods of working with screen printing, using tape to create outlines directly on the screen as well as carving acetate stencils. As with the previous week, I continued to struggle with the limitations of the process and became interested in researching how other designers take advantage of trying conditions to inform their work.
What is Design? a 1969 interview with Charles Eames helped build on the framework outlined in Adversarial Design as Inquiry and Practice, that I referenced last week. The conversation with the designer, further expanded on the idea that constraints, far from detracting from a design, are an integral part of both the process and the outcome.
The excerpt below encapsulates this idea:
“Q. Does the creation of design admit constraint?
A. Design largely depends 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, size, of strength, balance, of surface, of time, etc.; each problem has its own peculiar list” (Eames, 15).
By definition, constraints restrict a practice. Eames describes the constraints as either personal in character – willingness, enthusiasm – or external – price, size, time, etc. By delineating the parameters of a project, it is possible to devise a suitable methodology that will in turn, lead to a satisfying outcome.
Furthermore, design, according to Eames, is “a plan for arranging elements in such a way as to best accomplish a particular purpose” (Eames, 14). When the plan is well thought out, and the arrangement maximizes the potential of the elements, it becomes the best possible outcome that suits the proposed purpose. The limitations of a project provide the foundation for the plan, making them the starting point for any successful design.
In my experience of this brief, this approach has been an imperative. Identifying the narrow path where I could freely experiment allowed me to feel in control of the process and produce work that clearly evolved from its first iteration. I am certain that without this discipline, I would have wasted both time and energy trying too many ideas without knowing where to land or how to move forward. Understanding design on Eames’ terms gave greater clarity and focus to my process, creating a narrative to anchor my inquiry.
Eames, C., Neuhart, J. and Neuhart, M. (1989) Eames Design. New York: Abrams.