In my last post I briefly introduced the classic diagram of the Eames studio model—a brilliant and simple summary of how they envisioned their practice and its relationship with clients and society at large. Apart from the telling intersection between studio, client and society that for them defined successful work, what I like most about the diagram is how it suggests a value system that was ahead of its time.
Counter to the prevailing archetype of designers as objective, rational problem solvers (an idea that continues to define contemporary professional practice), the Eames model asserts that the studio has a valid interest in the work apart from providing a service to the client or delivering a product to society. Whether manifest in ideas, aesthetics, materials, etc., their work is informed by an ethos of intellectual inquiry and exploration. And it is their work. If you study the Eames’ substantial and diverse output, you can’t help but notice a common thread (or several) that goes beyond visual style. The studio had an obvious agenda, which it rigorously pursued whether working independently or on commission.
As the business of design has become increasingly professionalized and perhaps less rarified and creative, the idea of a design firm, let alone an individual designer, having a ideological stake in the work seems rather nostalgic, if not self-serving. Today, we partner. We research. We collaborate. We brainstorm. We ideate. We align. We sell it in. And eventually, we design. Amidst this multifaceted process, it is difficult, if not impossible to practice the sort of self-motivated inquiry and exploration inherent in the Eames model (not to mention expensive). However, when we dilute the design process and suppress our own interests in favor of overly inclusive and complex methodologies, we miss an important opportunity to define and execute a progressive agenda for our own time and place.
Agenda is a troublesome word, though. It sounds somewhat sinister—like we’re trying to get away with something, or worse mislead our clients into funding our artistic dalliances. That’s not what I’m after. What I’m advocating is a deeper relationship with our work that goes beyond individual projects and client relationships. We could use some theory to go along with the practice. I would love to encounter more work that emerges from a clear and defined set of values, whatever those might be. A packaging practice where sustainability is a mandate and not just a nice-to-have. A brand practice that believes in real differentiation and risk-taking. Design as a catalyst for innovation or social change. Whatever.
Such a focus would surely accelerate innovation by creating more favorable circumstances for developing new ideas and ultimately delivering greater value to both clients and society. Clients would benefit from breakthrough ideas; consumers would benefit from exceptional experiences that challenge, engage or delight. And design firms would benefit from a focused point of difference and clear sense of purpose—both of which drive greater efficiency as well as good work.
The best clients—those we most want to work with—expect more than service. They want a point of view. So, why have we been so timid in taking the next step?