Leap of Insight

RUNNING HEAD: LEAP OF INSIGHT, EXPLORING THE ESSENTIAL SPARK OF CREATIVE ILLUMINATION by RICHARD CLARKSON

Leap of insight: exploring the essential

spark of creative illumination

(Draft Copy)

Richard Clarkson

[email protected]

Process Blog: http://rcmdi.tumblr.com/

Tutor: Sarah Caylor

Student ID: 300160220

mailto:[email protected]

http://rcmdi.tumblr.com/

LEAP OF INSIGHT, EXPLORING THE ESSENTIAL SPARK OF CREATIVE ILLUMINATION RICHARD CLARKSON

Abstract

An exploration of the underlying design process of the fundamental idea generation and problem

identification procedures used in industrial design. This paper opens up this often neglected area of

design processes and existing frameworks to academic critic and evaluation. Furthermore I plan to

use the findings from this research to generate my own framework for use in both design education

and early, practice-based industry situations. I will utilise iconic chair design case studies of Eames

furniture to articulate my findings and provide examples for each framework category. This thesis

involves powerful ideas such as design motivation questions why we design. The aim of this paper is

not to formulate the design processes but rather to isolate certain elements within its initial stages

in order to reflect on it within a context. The motivation for this paper is personal however I hope

that the discussion here will help others, primarily those in education, both students and teachers,

to gain a deeper understanding of it.


Ninety-nine percent of all design in intuitive - Paul Rand. (Raye, 2009, p. 35)

This paper is born from a personal struggle of how to begin the design process. In my first year of

University the design papers often consist of very constructed projects to enable students to learn

specific skill sets and knowledge bases. In my second year the students, myself included, quickly

developed a craving for more open-ended briefs as the briefs remained relatively confined. In the

final year the project briefs open right out and suddenly the students, who had been dreaming of

open briefs for years, find themselves at a loss of how to even begin the initial phase. Watson calls

this phase the ‘leap of insight’ a rather poetic but extremely fitting tittle (Watson, 1974, p. iv).

In designerly ways of knowing Nigel Cross identifies three subjects of design research residing in

people, process and products. The first section of this paper is a discussion on the methodologies of

design, the process and development and application of techniques. I briefly touch on the design

process as a whole then focus on the initial spark that leads to good design. The second section

evaluates the Cross’s other two subjects of design by using Charles and Ray Eames as a case study of

the relationships between their initial methodologies and output products (Cross, From a Design

Science to a Design Discipline: Understanding Designerly Ways of Knowing and Thinking, 2007, p.

47).

Designing then, in terms of chess, is rather like playing with a board that has

no divisions into cells, has pieces that can be invented and redefined as the

game proceeds and rules that can change their effects as moves are made.

Even the object of the game is not defined at the outset and may change as

the game wears on. (Lawson, What designers know, 2004, p. 20)

Lawson’s comparison of the design process to a game of chess eloquently describes its complexities

and uniqueness as a problem solving procedure. For this very reason those in the past those who

have attempted to deconstruct and formulate the process have been met with high degrees of

counter evidence and been bombarded by powerful challenges to their formula (Lange, 2001)

(Cross, From a Design Science to a Design Discipline: Understanding Designerly Ways of Knowing and

Thinking, 2007). An example is the RIBA and Goel models for design as a sequence of activities:

Figure 1. - RIBA and Goel Models (Lawson, What designers know, 2004, p. 14)


In relation to Watson’s methodical approaches to the activity of designing as: exemplar (what the

designer does), pattern book (how he does it) and systematic (anatomy of the design problem)

(Watson, 1974, p. iv) systematically the models are correct, however theorists such as Lawson

disregards these two models as being over simplified and out of date for modern design. Another

approach is embodied by Ken Wallace (1991) the Bubble Design Process Model (Ashby & Johnson,

2010).

Figure 2. - Ken Wallace (1991) the Bubble Design Process (Ashby & Johnson, 2010, p. 35).

This approach allows for interlinking relationships between the design process elements but in many

ways is too abstract to be of any real use or application. There are various other diagrams and

models of the process such as; problem-solving process that involves rational-analytic procedure and

emotional –intuitive procedure based on work by F.G. Winter (Heufler, 2004, p. 73), Belsky’s Design

Management Formula (Belsky, 2010, p. 14) and numerous others but each seems to fall to one side

a useable format, i.e. too systematic and inflexible or to complex and abstract.

Following a simple step-by-step process does not lead to inspiring or even

apt, designs. For a more detailed view we must look at the “leap of insight”,

the essential spark of creative illumination. (Watson, 1974, p. iv)

Watson identifies the need for a different approach with focus on the ‘essential spark.’ It is here for

the purpose of this research that we divorce the idea of the initial spark from the rest of the design

process and focus on exploring that particular element.

Initial Spark & Design Drivers


The essential spark that Watson alluded to was by no means a new concept (Vegesack, Dunas, &

Schwartz-Clauss, c1996) (Hinrichs, 2009), but rather a largely unappreciated one. For example in

both fig.2 above the initial spark is pre-assumed. What Watson was interested in is almost what

comes before the initial bubble. Idential to interest in Kneller’s interpretation of ‘first sight’ a

recorgnition period that identifies the existance of a problem. This peiod may last for hours, days or

even years. He highlights the importance of the formulation of the problem as a critical phase of in

design situations and the need for an understanting of this process throughly (Lawson, How

designers think : the design process demystified, 2006, p. 109). This then feeds into Poincare’s five

stages of the creative process.

Figure 3. - Poincare’s (1924) five stage model of the creative process (Lawson, How designers think :

the design process demystified, 2006, p. 110)

The first two steps of this process and the feedback relationship are what interest me and are most

relevant for this research however further reading of the model shows its still pertains to the idea

that the first insight is based on the formulation of a problem.

Contemporary design has begun to expand beyond preconceived boundaries

of importance and relevance… The newest generation of designers,

therefore, are producing work within an altogether original set of

parameters, with new motivations, expectation and resources. (Houseley,

c2009, p. 9)

The idea that Houseley introduces in the quote above is that contemporary design is still working

within much the same processes and methodologies as it has done historically but the inputs to

these processes have changed and advanced. It makes logical sense then that the question of “why

we design” i.e. designers’ motivations should have a significant relationship with what drives the

initial spark. Thus in order to better understand the initial spark we must explore the fundamentals

behind the question of why we design.


We must design because we are not perfect. (Nelson & Stolterman, 2003, p.

4)

Nelson offers his examples of design motivation as; to control, from necessity, bring order, give

meaning, calling – design will, for enlightenment / wisdom, lack of wholeness and to be of service.

These motivations have strong reference to inquiries of the purpose of designing for which he

suggests the following to; Survive, improve, develop, thrive, evolve, serve others, make something of

lasting quality, create something of real consequence, participate in the never-ending genesis.

Nelson believed that once creative motivation was applied to purpose that was what sparked design

(Nelson & Stolterman, 2003, p. 13).

In order to maintain movement of this paper on the path of creative illumination enlightenment I

will assume Nelsons theory to be correct and if so the question of what forms creative motivation

still exists. Houseley identifies some key influences of modern day designers as being; Media,

Educational, Cultural, Environmental and Social Influences. Running parallel with this is Houseley’s

common themes of; Nostalgia, Recycling, solutions, Materials, Technological Innovations, Process

and Craft and finally Play (Houseley, c2009, pp. 9-13). Often these pertain to wider social, cultural

and political issues beyond that of the individual designers own personal ambitions or problem

solving structures.

Heufler provides another opinion on what forms creative motivation as consisting of factors; Human

factors [physical, emotional and social user needs] Technical factors [material selection and

manufacturing process] Finical Factors [material, tool and labor costs] Ecological Factors [raw

material and energy consumption, environmental impact] (Heufler, 2004, p. 73). There is a strong

resonance between Houseley and Heufler’s influences and factors. Although each worded in

different ways they both suggests a wide array of interlinked ‘essences’ of design. It is here at these

essences that we find what has the capacity to spark design.


Figure 4. – Design Driver Brainstorm by Richard Clarkson

In Fig. 03 I use Houseley and Heufler’s influences and factors to create a brainstorm of underlying

essences or ‘design drivers’. At this depth of analyisis its is clear why a formula for even just this

section of the design process is enevitably destined to fail. Even a brainstorm stuggles to identify the

interconectedness and evolutionary tendancies of each element. So rather than attempt to

exaustivly define each subdriver I have created four catergories which existing and future drivers

might fit into, these are the personal, the technological, the societal and the market.

(DRAFT NOTE: From here onwards I am still working on the intergration and devlopment of each

topic into the main body of the paper)


Not a formula but a tool

Figure 5. Systems Design Palette by Churchman 1979 (Nelson & Stolterman, 2003, p. 104)

Systems Design Palette with system on one axis and inquiry on the other. This is a System Inquiry

approach discussed earlier in the chapter, one quote of particular relevance

This requires the designer to acquire at least a working knowledge of

different approaches from which to choose, as well as to devote a

considerable time to reflecting on the specifics of the present design

situation and what is needed. (Nelson & Stolterman, 2003, p. 106)

This is the first instance I have come across an indication of the importance of initial reflection

before the idea is born. He then goes on to say

Particularized relationships among various categories of systems –and these

multiple modes of inquiry- create compounds of inquiry and action that

assist in explaining or describing a specific complex system. They can also

help to conceptualize such a system as a new design, when it does not yet

exist. The capacity to create design palettes comprised of systems types in

relationship to different design of inquiry is essential for managing complex

design projects.

In those few sentences Nelson effectively justifies my planned design output. On page 299 Nelson

talks about ‘drivers of action’ and explains:


It is important to remember that design is a choice, one among many

triggers that drives intentional behaviour. (Nelson & Stolterman, 2003, p.

299)

In the end perhaps design must be learnt rather than taught. We each of us

have to acquire our own process, for it is we, not others, who must design

with it. However, that process deserves extensive and carful study. (Lawson,

How designers think : the design process demystified, 2006, p. 3)

In relation to design technologies he identifies that an inventive element is esentialy independent

from the field of the creator using Clegg’s (1969) examples of inventions & inventor relationships; for

exmple a Muscian invented Kodachrome films, an Undertaker invented the Automatic Telephone

and a Journalist invented the Parking Meter. This shows that base principals of invention at leasted

can be interdiciplinary and the proceses can be generalised across different areas, not only within

design but outside it aswell.

Interesting note that he suggests that end product classification due to speciaseied technologies can

have a straightjacket effect on the designer by “directing mental processes towards a predefined

goal.” Lawson later identifies the design process in the following; the design process is endless, there

is no infallibly correct process, the process involves finding as well as solving problems, design

inevitably involves subjective value judgement, design is a prescriptive activity and designers work in

the context of a need for action. (Lawson, How designers think : the design process demystified,

2006, pp. 91-92)

Also mentions the Gestalt School od Pshycology that concentrates on processes and organisation

rather than mechanisims. In the Creative Thinking chapter Lawson brings forth Kneller’s

interpretation of ‘first sight’ a recorgnition period that identifies the existance of a problem. This

peiod may last for hours, days or even years. He highlights the importance of the formulation of the

problem as a critical phase of in design situations and the need for an understanting of this process

throughly. (Lawson, How designers think : the design process demystified, 2006, p. 109)

That is, each problem is not viewed afresh but rather is first classified

according to types of problem already encountered, and the solution is

selected accordingly (Lawson, How designers think : the design process

demystified, 2006, pp. 112-113)

Creative tecqunies such as brainstorming, Synectics and fantasey, each involving restrictions and

rules of permited behaviour to reduce the tendancy to try to fit old solutions to new problems.


Lawson discusses some ‘traps’ that causes inexperienced designers difficulties in problem

identification these include; the catergory trap, the puzzel trap, the icon trap and the image trap

(Lawson, How designers think : the design process demystified, 2006, pp. 158-177)

In relation to design education Lawson identifies a nessisary balance between free, open ended and

expresive work and acquasition of knowledge, discipline and expertise. However also provides

evidence to suggest that short-term or restricted experience of open ended problem-solving is not

always benefictial as it produces a mechanising effect on individual thinking.

Case Study – Charles and Ray Eames

1940’s began to bring a change in the perception of the chair as an icon and as a metaphor for the

actual designer. Massey then continues on to discuss the divorcing of the chair from the original

interior art object by Museums and Galleries (Massey, 2011, p. 71).

Vitra firm itself strives to collect and document not only the final output but also the documentary

material (Vegesack, Dunas, & Schwartz-Clauss, c1996, p. 13) this locates it perfectly in my research

scope which explores process and driving factors of the design. When Ray died she gifted the

extensive process documentation to the Vitra museum, generating an enormous database of their

processes, methodologies and thinking available to the public. This resource database allows me to

properly explore the ideas and theories behind each of the pieces more so than most other

designers works.

A brief history of the Eames starts with the collaboration between Charles Eames and Eero Saarinen

on their winning entries of plywood furniture submitted for the 1940 Museum of Modern Art

(MoMA) competition in New York (Byars, 50 chairs : innovations in design and materials, 1996)

(Baker & Baker, 2011). The mass manufacture of these pieces was ‘fraught with difficulties’ so much

so that Saarinen left to pursue other projects. Operating with similar design ideologies Ray soon

became both a romantic partner and a modernist-design driven creative partner. As World War II

broke out they gained work designing and manufacturing bent ply splints and later aircraft parts for

the US Navy (Mehlhose & Martin, c2009). These military contracts provided valuable access to new

developments both in production of ply and more advanced glues. As military contracts increased

Charles and Ray brought in colleagues from various disciplines to create The Plywood Group. Soon

after this group moved to the eventual design and manufacture of The Plywood Group Furniture

(1945-46) including the iconic Low Chair Wood (LCW). Kirkham then goes onto discus the origins of

the iconic Eames Lounger and Ottoman and reference is made to Billy as a motivation. Charles state,

The motivation behind most of the things we’ve done was either that we

wanted them ourselves or we wanted to give them to someone else… The

Lounge chair, for example, was really done as a present for a friend, Billy


Wilder, and has since been reproduced. (Kirkham, Eidelber, Hine, Hanks, &

Peatross, 2006, p. 54)

A fundamental design idea throughout Eames work is their ambition to ‘create high-quality

economical furniture. This highlights the two other driving forces in Eames work. First from a larger

societal standpoint the political requirements of the time necessitated minimization of input

resources. Secondly from a Market perspective post war America contained an emerging middle

class that desired luxury or ‘good design’ at affordable prices, and thus the Eames moved to meet

this gap in the market. Around 1995 the Eames achieved this balance in wood, plastic and wire

Mesh.

Culmination of the Eames’s long and trying search for the ideal application –

or as they would say purely honest application – for molded plywood.

(Lidwell & Manacsa, 2009, p. 106)

Billy Wilder’s request for Charles to build and “ultra, ultra, ultra comfortable

modern lounge chair.” Also explores Charles’s “Banana leaf parable” a

simple to esoteric to simple design ideology. (Lidwell & Manacsa, 2009, p.

112)

1 Technology – LCW Low Chair Wood 2 Individual – Eames Lounger 3 Social – Fiberglass Chair 4 Market – La Chaise

Figure 6. Various Sketches of Eames Furniture by Richard Clarkson


Literary Review:

To gain a better understanding of the relationships and comparisons of resources within topics I

have formatted my Literary Review of key resources in the order that I came across them and then

listed them in key topic groupings. These consist of; Discourse / Good Design, Design Education,

Design Process, History of Furniture, Eames Specific Furniture and Materials & Technology Specific

Resources.

Discourse / Good Design Resources

Hinrichs, K. (2009). Good design : deconstructing form, function, and what makes design

work. 26-31. (T. Marks, & M. Porter, Interviewers) Beverly, Mass: Rockport Publishers.

pp.28 “what makes good or great design: emotional content, storytelling ability and staying power,”

Also mentions design for family as a trigger. pp.30 in relation to a question on what kind of reference

and source materials he uses for inspiration and ideas Hinrichs states “I get true inspiration from the

world around us. From the culture we’re in.”

Raye, R. (2009). Good design : deconstructing form, function, and what makes design work.

(T. Marks, & M. Porter, Interviewers) Beverly, Mass: Beverly, Mass.

“Ninety-nine percent of all design in intuitive” Paul Rand (Raye, 2009, p. 35)

Couturier, E. (c2010). Talk about design. Paris: Flammarion : distributed in North America by

Rizzoli International Pub.

The 2nd Chapter titteld “Before Design,” (pp.32-41) introduces some basic ideas of style affecting

design, “If, in literature, style makes a differnce, in interior decoration is sums up a period.” Meaning

that styled objects denote a particular time and culture frozen in place by the objects themselves. I

think its also imperitive to note here that although I am primarily using Eames Furniture in my case

studies I am in my base research exploring a wider aray of furniture styles, designers and histories.

Overall very nice book with a strong relation between product design and art.

Design Education Resources

Watson, J. D. (1974). The design activity : a pattern for design education. Melbourne:

University of Melbourne.

pp.iv synopsis, Watson introduces methodical approaches to the activity of designing as: exemplar

(what the designer does), pattern book (how he does it) and systematic (anatomy of the design

problem) Design process is the name given to describe the designer’s own metal process either

linear, cyclic or general systems models. The general systems model allows for similarities in the

process across different designers and subjects of design. He also identifies an optimum educational

system would focus on the design process rather than the designed object. I challenge this viewpoint


and suggest that both are vital to design education and there should be a relationship and balance

between the two.

“Following a simple step-by-step process does not lead to inspiring or even apt, designs. For a more

detailed view we must look at the “leap of insight”, the essential spark of creative illumination.”

(Watson, 1974, p. iv)

Design Process Resources

Belsky, S. (2010). Making ideas happen : overcoming the obstacles between vision and

reality. New York: Portfolio.

pp.14 Introduction on The forces that make ideas happen very usefull for my design process

reserach, especialy the fomula Beslky provides: Making ideas Happen = (the idea) + organisation

and excution + forces of community + leadership capability. (Belsky, 2010, p. 14) Also his chapter

on Breaking Projects into primary elements is also useful for clasification and articulation (pp.34)

Best, K. (2010). The fundamentals of design management. Lausanne: AVA Academia ; La

Vergne, TN : Distributed in the USA & Canada by Ingram Publisher Services, c2010.

pp.12 Design Business Definition that I want to challenge from this resource states that design is a

people-centered, problem solving process. I want to expand this definition to broaden its scope

beyond just people-centered, as I believe design now has the ability to related to and reflect upon

more than just people and society. The whole book is from a bussines viewpoint which is a valid

perspective but its also important to realise that its not the only design perspective. Pp.18 gives a

good overview of a Market lead approach to design and to contrast this pp.42 explores design for

society. Best also introduces design thinking and cites Tim Brown stating a design thinker must

explore a “landscape of innovation” that involves people, needs, technology and business. Pp.44

Jacob, B., & Zec, P. (Eds.). (2010). Design value : a strategy for business success. Essen: Red

Dot ; London : Springer [distributor], 2010.

A second resource I have looked at from a design business stratagies perspective. Similar to Best’s

The fundamentals of design management. Design Value however is more focused on interpreting

value and seems to go beyond Best’s deffinition of design. Every idea needs a form chappeter

contains the concept that “a project always starts with an idea” pp.33 I argue this is much to simple

statement to make, and ignores a huge amount of process and critical thinking that happens before

and at the generation of the idea. Pp.44 Jacob then explores design Value once again taking a very

market level perspective citing Thomas Watson Jr’s comment “Good design is good business!” In a

later chapter Jacob calculates design value using the following formula: (Design Revenue x Design

Strength) + (Design Revenue x Design Continuity) + Design Assets = Design Value. Pp.161

Moore, D. J. (2007). Design and the creative process. Clifton Park, N.Y.: Thomson Delmar

Learning.

An excellent resource for an understanding of the design process from both a practise based theory

to and educational exploration. In the Preface it identifies that as teaching tool students will gain an


understanding of the background specifics such as relevancy, client consumer and marketplace

issues as well as function and rational, which can be used as a precedent starting point for projects.

Lange, M. W. (2001). Design semiosis : synthesis of products in the design activity .

Stockholm: Dept. of Machine Design, Royal Institute of Technology.

Though this thesis goes well beyond my brief exploration of the design process, the early chapter are

relevant to both developing my understanding of design from a research perspective. It also

provides a catalogue of the history of design process models which could be useful to build upon.

Pp.20. Lange brings in Copper’s divisions (1993) for reasoning for the creation of new product from a

business and profit driven sense as being either; New to the Company or New to the Market pp.39

Jones, S. W. (1973). Product design and process selection. London: Butterworth.

Some core themes that are still relevant in terms of design process but similar to Jacob’s Design

Value it skims over the creation or identification of the problem which is what this research is

focused on.

Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2003). The design way : intentional change in an

unpredictable world : foundations and fundamentals of design competence. Englewood

Cliffs, N.J.: Educational Technology Publications.

pp.4 The two ideas from this book that I found helpful towards my research are: design foundations

and design fundamentals, which Nelson defines as the first principals and core concepts of design

respectively. In the first chapter the First Tradition he denotes that “we must design because we are

not perfect” and inquires about the purpose of designing and lists the following: Survive, improve,

develop, thrive, evolve, serve others, make something of lasting quality, create something of real

consequence, participate in the never-ending genesis. Nelson then goes on to explore motivation for

designing as being derived: to control, from necessity, bring order, give meaning, calling – design

will, for enlightenment / wisdom, lack of wholeness and to be of service (pp.13) Both of these lists

resonate deeply within my own design ideology. Only recently I was asked why I design. And found

real difficulty in articulating a response. Pp.37 Covers intuition in design. Pp.106 is a really useful

figure of an example of a systems Design Palette with system on one axis and inquiry on the other.

This is a System Inquiry approach discussed earlier in the chapter, one quote of particular relevance

“This requires the designer to acquire at least a working knowledge of different approaches from

which to choose, as well as to devote a considerable time to reflecting on the specifics of the present

design situation and what is needed.” This is the first instance I have come across an indication of

the importance of initial reflection before the idea is born. He then goes on to say “Particularized

relationships among various categories of systems –and these multiple modes of inquiry- create

compounds of inquiry and action that assist in explaining or describing a specific complex system.

They can also help to conceptualize such a system as a new design, when it does not yet exist. The

capacity to create design palettes comprised of systems types in relationship to different design of

inquiry is essential for managing complex design projects. In those few sentences Nelson effectively

justifies my planned design output. On page 299 Nelson talks about ‘drivers of action’ and explains “

It is important to remember that design is a choice, one among many triggers that drives intentional

behaviour.”


Lawson, B. (2004). What designers know. Boston, MA: Elsevier/Architectural Press.

Contains a useful figure of the RIBA (Briefing > Analysis > Synthesis > Evaluation) and Goel (Problem

Structuring [preliminary Design > Refinement > Detail Design]) Models of design as a sequence of

activities. (Lawson, What designers know, 2004, p. 14) Pp.14 figure 2.4 Lawson’s comparison of the

design process to a game of chess eloquently describes its complexities and uniqueness as a problem

solving procedure. “Designing then, in terms of chess, is rather like playing with a board that has no

divisions into cells, has pieces that can be invented and redefined as the game proceeds and rules

that can change their effects as moves are made. Even the object of the game is not defined at the

outset and may change as the game wears on.” (Lawson, What designers know, 2004, p. 20) pp.20

Further chapters on Architectural design drawing in relation to knowledge are not as applicable to

my research.

Lawson, B. (2006). How designers think : the design process demystified (2nd ed.). Oxford:

Elsevier Architectural Press.

This is a more indepth analyis of design thinking than What Designers Know, a later simplified

version of his research. In his intorduction to the book Lawson identifies that “In the end perhaps

design must be learnt rather than taught. We each of us have to acquire our own process, for it is

we, not others, who must design with it. However, that process deserves extensive and carful

study.”pp.3 In relation to design technologies he identifies that an inventive element is esentialy

independent from the field of creation using Clegg’s (1969) examples of inventions & inventor

relationships; for exmple a Muscian invented Kodachrome films, an Undertaker invented the

Automatic Telephone and a Journalist invented the Parking Meter. This shows that base principals of

invention at leasted can be interdiciplinary and the proceses can be generalised across different

areas, not only within design but outside it aswell. Interesting note that he suggests that end

product classification due to speciaseied technologies can have a straightjacket effect on the

designer by “directing mental processes towards a predefined goal.” Lawson later identifies the

design process in the following; the design process is endless, there is no infallibly correct process,

the process involves finding as well as solving problems, design inevitably involves subjective value

judgement, design is a prescriptive activity and designers work in the context of a need for

action.pp.91-92 Also mentions the Gestalt School od Pshycology that concentrates on processes and

organisation rather than mechanisims. In the Creative Thinking chapter Lawson brings forth Kneller’s

interpretation of ‘first sight’ a recorgnition period that identifies the existance of a problem. This

peiod may last for hours, days or even years. He highlights the importance of the formulation of the

problem as a critical phase of in design situations and the need for an understanting of this process

throughly.pp.109 This then feeds into Poincare’s (1924) five stage model of the creative process;

First insight >< preparation> Incubation> Illumination> Verification. Pp.10 The first two steps of this

process and the redback relationship are what interest me and are most relevant for this research. In

relation to design education Lawson identifies a nessisary balance between free, open ended and

expresive work and acquasition of knowledge, discipline and expertise. However also provides

evidence to suggest that short-term or restricted experience of open ended problem-solving is not

always benefictial as it produces a mechanising effect on individual thinking.”that is, each problem is

not viewd afresh but rather is first classified according to types of problem already encounted, and

the solution is selected accordingly” He elabourates to sugest creative tecqunies such as

brainstorming, Synectics and fantasey, each involving restrictions and rules of permited behaviour


to reduce the tendancy to try to fit old solutions to new problems. pp.112-113 Convergent and

Divergent thinking abilitie. Pp.118 Canonic versus Analogical design to use alaogies from other areas

to create a new way of seeing the problem.pp156 Finaly Lawson discusses some ‘traps’ that causes

inexperienced designers difficulties in problem identification these include; the catergory trap, the

puzzel trap, the icon trap and the image trap.pp.158-177

Cross, N. (2007). From a Design Science to a Design Discipline: Understanding Designerly

Ways of Knowing and Thinking. In M. Ralf (Ed.), Design Research Now (pp. 41-54). Basel:

Birkhäuser.

One of the required readings for this course that is relevant to my research, however this partiuclar

paper of Cross’s referes more to knowledge and design research than the actual processes that

initiate design. Therefore in this case other resources such as Nelson’s The Design Way and Lawson’s

How Designers Think are more applicable.

Heufler, G. (2004). Design basics : from ideas to products. (S. M. Zettinig, Trans.) Zurich:

Niggli Verlag.

pp.73 Heufler identifies four types of product determining factors based on Schurer; Human factors

(physical, emotional and social user needs) Technical factors (material selection and manufacturing

process) Finical Factors (material, tool and labor costs) Ecological Factors (raw material and energy

consumption, environmental impact). (Heufler, 2004, p. 73) I am unsure about whether or not this

breakdown of factors is adequate for modern day design and plan to reevaluate it and create my

own categorizations with interlinking factors. Heufler then goes on to explain a proposed problem-

solving process that involves rational-analytic procedure and emotional –intuitive procedure based

on work by F.G. Winter.

Houseley, L. (c2009). The independent design guide : innovative products from the new

generation. New York: Thames & Hudson.

Very nice exploration of contemporary design, the main use of this resource comes from its

introduction on a new design landscape. “Contemporary design has begun to expand beyond

preconceived boundaries of importance and relevance… The newest generation of designers,

therefore, are producing work within an altogether original set of parameters, with new motivations,

expectation and resources.” Many rules and models that applied to previous generations of design

have become redundant and in need of re-evaluation, and I argue that the initial design phase is

such a model. Houseley briefly identifies the wider social, cultural and political issues highlighted by

designers beyond that of the designers own personal ambitions. The author also identifies some key

influences that are notably forming common themes between modern day designers, these include;

Media, Educational, Cultural, Environmental and Social. Running parallel with this is Houseley’s

common themes of; Nostalgia, Recycling, solutions, Materials, Technological Innovations Process

and Craft and finally play.

History of Furniture Resources

Massey, A. (2011). Chair. London: Reaktion Books.


Concise yet descriptive analysis of the chair and its historical background. Chapter 2 Designers

Presence, especially from page 71-73 concerning the change in the perception of the chair as an icon

and as a metaphor for the actual designer. Massey then continues on to discuss the divorcing of the

chair from the original interior art object by Museums and Galleries. This flows into a descriptive

summary of Charles and Ray Eames work. Interesting that Massey compares the Eames work with

Eero Saarinen designer of the Tulip Chair. “Unlike the Eameses, Saarinen was less concerned with

the technology and construction of the chair, and more focused on the overall initial impact of a

unified whole. The 1956 Herman Miller ad featuring the exploded diagrams of its complex

construction would be an excellent diagram to include in my research pp.76-77

Mehlhose, A., & Martin, W. (c2009). Modern furniture : 150 years of design. K nigswinter,

Germany: h.f.ullmann.

pp.459 Eames Lounge Chair, very nice image that could be useful as a digital resource. The same

applies to the Wire Chair (pp.497) Moulded Plastic Chair (pp.449) La Chaise (pp.516). Mehlhose later

dedicates a section to Plywood Experiements – A Thoruroghly Modern Material by Karianne

Fogelberg (pp.536-541) This is a descriptive but brief exploration of one of the Eames well know

material process and will provide a nice supplimentary research to ideas discused in Kirkham’s The

Eames Lounge Chair.

Eames Specific Furniture Resources

Vegesack, A. v., Dunas, P., & Schwartz-Clauss, M. (Eds.). (c1996). 100 masterpieces from the

Vitra Design Museum collection. Weil am Rhein: Vitra Design Museum.

From the beginning of this research this has been a primary resource in terms of iconic chair design

methodologies and ideals. Though there are some iconic chairs such as Joe Colombo’s Tube Chair

and The Bel Air Armchair that I feel are missing from this resource none can dispute that it is an

impressive collection of furniture design and furniture thinking. “We can produce things we could

never think of under normal circumstances. Of course that doesn’t mean constraints are not good,

constraints are good. They make us humble and serving, but it’s as important to ignore them

occasionally and experiment with other criteria in mind. That is what we do, anticipate things to

come, we don’t know them clearly but we feel that we can experiment with materials, typology, with

technical ideas, with social ideas, social issues etc.” Rolf Fehlbaum, Chairman Vitra. One of the

reasons that this particular resource is more relevant to my research than some of the other Chair

design and Chair histories resources I have looked at is for two reasons. The first is that the Vitra firm

itself strives to collect and document not only the final output but also the documentary material

(pp.13), this locates it perfectly in my research scope which explores process and driving factors of

the design. The second is the Media that it is presented in. Along with this book there is a CD-ROM, a

poster and in the case of the Victoria University of Wellington there is a scale model collection of 97

of the chairs. The implications of this broad media spread, especially the scale models, provides the

opportunity to explore the designs in greater detail to gain a better understanding of them. I have

put in a request to have the 4 models I discus in my case studies on display during my final

presentation. Some of the truly influential designs featured are: Chair No.14 - Michael Thonet 1859,

Donna - Gaetano Pesce 1969, Wiggle Side Chair - Frank Gehry 1972, No. 670 - Josef Hoffmann 1905,


Chaise Longue - Le Corbusier 1928, Eames Lounge and Ottoman -Charles and Ray Eames 1956, Zig

Zag - Gerrit Rietveld 1932, LWC - Charles and Ray Eames 1945, Pantone Chair - Verner Panton 1959,

Poltrona di Proust - Alessandro Mendini 1978, Queen Anne - Robert Venturi 1979, Roodblauwe stoel

- Gerrit Rietveild, B 3/Wassily - Marcel Breuer 1925, Lassu - Alessandro Mendini 1974.

Lidwell, W., & Manacsa, G. (2009). Deconstructing product design : exploring the form,

function, usability, sustainability, and commercial success of 100 amazing products. Beverly,

Mass: Rockport Publishers.

pp.106 LCW “culmination of the Eames’s long and trying search for the ideal application – or as they

would say purely honest application – for molded plywood. Lounge Chair and Ottoman pp.112

Seconds idea that it was initiated with Billy Wilder’s request for Charles to build and “ultra, ultra,

ultra comfortable modern lounge chair.” Also explores Charles’s “Banana leaf parable” a simple to

esoteric to simple design ideology.

Kirkham, P., Eidelber, M., Hine, T., Hanks, D. A., & Peatross, C. F. (2006). The Eames lounge

chair : an icon of modern design. London: Merrell.

Expands more on the collaboration between Charles Eames and Eero Saarinen on their winning

entries of plywood furniture submitted for the 1940 Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) competition in

New York. The mass manufacture of these pieces was ‘fraught with difficulties’ so much so that

Saarinen left to pursue other projects. Operating with similar design ideologies Ray soon became

both a romantic partner and a modernist-design driven creative partner. As World War II broke out

they gained work designing and manufacturing bent ply splints and later aircraft parts for the US

Navy. These military contracts provided valuable access to new developments both in production of

ply and more advanced glues. As military contracts increased Charles and Ray brought in colleagues

from various disciplines to create The Plywood Group. Soon after this group moved to the eventual

design and manufacture of The Plywood Group Furniture (1945-46) including the iconic Low Chair

Wood (LCW). Kirkham then goes onto discus the origins of the ‘super-iconic’ Eames Lounger and

Ottoman and reference is made to Billy as a motivation. Charles state, “the motivation behind most

of the things we’ve done was either that we wanted them ourselves or we wanted to give them to

someone else… The Lounge chair, for example, was really done as a present for a friend, Billy Wilder,

and has since been reproduced.” (pp.54) A fundamental design idea throughout Eames work is their

ambition to ‘create high-quality economical furniture. This highlights the two other driving forces in

Eames work. First from a larger societal standpoint the political requirements of the time

necessitated minimization of input resources. Secondly from a Market perspective post war America

contained an emerging middle class that desired luxury or ‘good design’ at affordable prices, and

thus the Eames moved to meet this gap in the market. Around 1995 the Eames achieved this balance

in wood, plastic and wire Mesh.

Materials & Technology Specific Resources

Ashby, M., & Johnson, K. (2010). Materials and design : the art and science of material

selection in product design. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.


Chapter 3’s section of Ways of thinking evaluates observation and perception in relation to industrial

design by categorizing different attributes; Aesthetic, association, perceived and emotional.pp.30

These relate quite closely to my initial framework of possible design derivers and triggers, suggesting

there is a solid relationship between the perception of finished objects in the creation of new ones.

Also talks about Verbal-Mathematical and Visual Thinking as defined by McKim (1980). In the

following pages Ashby gives a concise industrial viewpoint on the design process and goes on to

explain the Bubble Design Process Model developed by Ken Wallace (1991) (Ashby & Johnson, 2010,

p. 35) Pages 107-113 there is a section titled Materials and Chairs which will be useful supporting

evidence in my materials case study.

Beylerian, G. M., & Dent, A. (2007). Ultra materials : how materials innovation is changing

the world / George M. Beylerian and Andrew Dent. (B. Quinn, Ed.) New York, N.Y: Thames &

Hudson.

pp.12 Materials as the Basis of Ideas, will provide very nice introduction information and support

material for the materials case study. Similar to Ashby’s Materials and design. Other chapters in the

book extensively explore specific materials and experts’ use, views and ideas of them. Also an article

on Hella Jongerius by Bradley Quinn could give an insight to the relationship between materials and

other design derivers such as personal factors.pp.98-101

Antonelli, P. (c2003). Objects of design, from the Museum of Modern Art . New York:

Museum of Modern Art ; Distributed in the U.S. and Canada by D.A.P./Distributed Art

Publishers, Inc.

pp.280 Tokujin Yoshioka in relation to his Honey-Pop Armchair “a concept [is] often inspired simply

by the desire to use new materials and processes… I never start with form”. Chapter on Good design

contains useful resources on much of the Eames work in relation to other works of a similar time

period. Interesting point that the Eames Lounger was said to be originally produced for Charles’s

friend Billy Wilder (pp.201). Brief written descriptions of this piece, LCM Low Side Chair and La

Chaise in earlier pages.

Baker, K., & Baker, F. (2011). Modern furniture classics : from 1900 to now. London: Carlton

Books.

Very simple and to the point chronological style based book covering styles such as Art Nouveau,

Modernism, Art Deco, Mid-Century Modern, Pop, Postmodern, Millennium and art. I am focusing on

the Mid-Century Modern chapter introduction and the Eames Examples given. LWC’s (pp.155). DKR-

2 Chair (pp.165). Lounge Chair and Ottoman (pp.176)


Bibliography

Antonelli, P. (c2003). Objects of design, from the Museum of Modern Art . New York: Museum of

Modern Art ; Distributed in the U.S. and Canada by D.A.P./Distributed Art Publishers, Inc.

Ashby, M., & Johnson, K. (2010). Materials and design : the art and science of material selection in

product design. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Baker, K., & Baker, F. (2011). Modern furniture classics : from 1900 to now. London: Carlton Books.

Belsky, S. (2010). Making ideas happen : overcoming the obstacles between vision and reality. New

York: Portfolio.

Best, K. (2010). The fundamentals of design management. Lausanne: AVA Academia ; La Vergne, TN :

Distributed in the USA & Canada by Ingram Publisher Services, c2010.

Beylerian, G. M., & Dent, A. (2007). Ultra materials : how materials innovation is changing the world

/ George M. Beylerian and Andrew Dent. (B. Quinn, Ed.) New York, N.Y: Thames & Hudson.

Byars, M. (1996). 50 chairs : innovations in design and materials. Hove, U.K: RotoVision.

Byars, M., & Barre-Despond, A. (1999). 100 designs, 100 years : a celebration of the 20th century.

Hove: RotoVision.


Couturier, E. (c2010). Talk about design. Paris: Flammarion : distributed in North America by Rizzoli

International Pub.

Cross, N. (2007). From a Design Science to a Design Discipline: Understanding Designerly Ways of

Knowing and Thinking. In M. Ralf (Ed.), Design Research Now (pp. 41-54). Basel: Birkhäuser.

Cross, N. (2011). Design thinking : understanding how designers think and work. Oxford ; New York:

Berg Publishers.

Danto, A. C. (1988). 397 chairs. New York: H.N. Abrams.

Fiell, P., & Fiell, C. (2001). Modern furniture classics : postwar to post-modernism. London: Thames &

Hudson.

Hayward, H. (Ed.). (1965). World furniture : an illustrated history. London ; New York: Hamlyn.

Heufler, G. (2004). Design basics : from ideas to products. (S. M. Zettinig, Trans.) Zurich: Niggli Verlag.

Hinchman, M. (c2009). History of furniture : a global view. New York: Fairchild Books.

Hinrichs, K. (2009). Good design : deconstructing form, function, and what makes design work. 26-

31. (T. Marks, & M. Porter, Interviewers) Beverly, Mass: Rockport Publishers.

Houseley, L. (c2009). The independent design guide : innovative products from the new generation.

New York: Thames & Hudson.

Jacob, B., & Zec, P. (Eds.). (2010). Design value : a strategy for business success. Essen: Red Dot ;

London : Springer [distributor], 2010.

Jones, S. W. (1973). Product design and process selection. London: Butterworth.

Kirkham, P., Eidelber, M., Hine, T., Hanks, D. A., & Peatross, C. F. (2006). The Eames lounge chair : an

icon of modern design. London: Merrell.

Kottas, D. ([2011?]). Materials : innovation & design. (J. Krauel, & J. Noden, Eds.) Barcelona, Spain:

Links.

Lange, M. W. (2001). Design semiosis : synthesis of products in the design activity . Stockholm: Dept.

of Machine Design, Royal Institute of Technology.

Lawson, B. (2004). What designers know. Boston, MA: Elsevier/Architectural Press.

Lawson, B. (2006). How designers think : the design process demystified (2nd ed.). Oxford: Elsevier

Architectural Press.

Lidwell, W., & Manacsa, G. (2009). Deconstructing product design : exploring the form, function,

usability, sustainability, and commercial success of 100 amazing products. Beverly, Mass:

Rockport Publishers.

Mang, K. (1979). History of modern furniture. London: Academy Editions.


Margolin, V. (Ed.). (1989). Design discourse : history, theory, criticism. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press.

Massey, A. (2011). Chair. London: Reaktion Books.

Mehlhose, A., & Martin, W. (c2009). Modern furniture : 150 years of design. K nigswinter, Germany:

h.f.ullmann.

Moore, D. J. (2007). Design and the creative process. Clifton Park, N.Y.: Thomson Delmar Learning.

Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2003). The design way : intentional change in an unpredictable world

: foundations and fundamentals of design competence. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Educational

Technology Publications.

Raye, R. (2009). Good design : deconstructing form, function, and what makes design work. (T.

Marks, & M. Porter, Interviewers) Beverly, Mass: Beverly, Mass.

Russell, F. (Ed.). (1980). A Century of chair design. New York: Rizzoli.

Schmitz, H. ([1926]). Encyclopaedia for furniture: an outline history with 659 illustrations . New York :

Weyhe.

Shimazaki, M. (2002). New theory and basics of the modern chair. T ky : World Photo Press.

Sudjic, D. (2008). The language of things. London ; New York: Allen Lane.

Vegesack, A. v., Dunas, P., & Schwartz-Clauss, M. (Eds.). (c1996). 100 masterpieces from the Vitra

Design Museum collection. Weil am Rhein: Vitra Design Museum.

Watson, J. D. (1974). The design activity : a pattern for design education. Melbourne: University of

Melbourne.

Documents

Leap of Insight