temporary vs. lasting design
design on a dime vs. charles & ray eames
the eames' legacy plays into today's design star philosophy in the aspects of the role education plays in interior design, the importance of credentials and experiences for the design field, a holistic approach to design, experience and life skills a designer attains, and the role of the media in interior design. I think the main difference between the two is that the eames' dedicated their whole life to design and architecture, while design stars don't. there seems to be a lack of substance and purpose in design stars beliefs and the things they create, and lack of craft. they don't necessarily have to develop a personal style and weren't pushed to create something new and unique, but rather just a new interpretation on something that has already been done.
design stars mainly just try to design spaces that are appealing to the eye, but don't connect from space to space. on the other hand, the eames' had a holistic approach and a deep sense of connection, which was articulated through detail and the amount of thought they put into every design.
the role media plays in the interpretation of interior design has changed from mainly magazines to tv shows. the shows of today don't portray the time it takes to design a space or the thought process and extensive details, which makes it seem like it doesn't take that much effort.
credentials, experience, and education are all very important aspects to interior design, as well as any other career. during schooling you receive knowledge and experience that you can't receive anywhere else. teachers proved valuable resources and have a much broader understanding of the field, which they then pass along to the students, where design stars who never went to college haven't received this.
the eames' provided lasting design, while design stars proved temporary design. buildings and spaces aren't meant to last anymore, and that takes away from the potential and impact of design and architecture.
