Meaning: This quote by Charles Eames, a renowned American designer and architect, delves into the relationship between architecture and design, highlighting the concept of degeneration within the field of architecture. To fully understand the significance of this quote, it is important to explore the context in which it was made and its implications for both architecture and design.

Charles Eames, along with his wife Ray Eames, made significant contributions to the fields of architecture, furniture design, industrial design, and graphic design. They are best known for their iconic furniture designs, such as the Eames Lounge Chair and Ottoman, as well as their groundbreaking contributions to modern architecture and design.

When Eames mentions that "in architecture the idea degenerated," he is likely referring to a perceived decline in the conceptual and innovative aspects of architecture. This can be interpreted as a commentary on the state of architectural practice, suggesting that the original ideas and principles that should guide the design process have been compromised or lost over time. This loss of the original idea or concept may have led to a decline in the overall quality and creativity of architectural designs.

Eames contrasts this degeneration in architecture with the notion that design allows a more direct and pleasurable route. Here, he implies that design, in its broader sense, offers a more straightforward and enjoyable path for creative expression and problem-solving. By drawing a distinction between architecture and design, Eames may be highlighting the potential for greater freedom and creativity in the design process compared to the constraints and complexities often associated with architecture.

In the context of architecture, the term "idea" can refer to the underlying concept or vision that informs a building's design. This idea serves as the foundation for the architectural process, guiding decisions about form, function, and meaning. Eames' assertion that the idea has degenerated in architecture suggests a departure from this foundational concept, leading to a potential loss of coherence, originality, and purpose in architectural design.

It is important to note that Eames' perspective on architecture and design reflects his own experiences and observations within the fields. His work and collaborations with architects, designers, and corporations provided him with a unique vantage point from which to assess the state of architectural and design practice.

In considering Eames' quote, it becomes evident that he valued the role of ideas and concepts in shaping the creative process. For Eames, the idea was a crucial starting point, serving as a catalyst for innovation and problem-solving. The degeneration of this idea within architecture may have been a source of concern for Eames, prompting him to emphasize the potential of design as a more direct and pleasurable route for creative expression.

By advocating for design as a more direct and pleasurable route, Eames may have been championing the benefits of a broader, more inclusive approach to creativity and problem-solving. Design, in this context, encompasses a wide range of disciplines and practices, including industrial design, graphic design, interior design, and more. Eames' belief in the potential of design to offer a more direct and pleasurable route suggests a shift in focus from the perceived limitations of architecture to the expansive possibilities inherent in design.

In conclusion, Charles Eames' quote provides a thought-provoking perspective on the relationship between architecture and design. His commentary on the degeneration of the idea in architecture and the potential of design as a more direct and pleasurable route offers insight into his views on creativity, innovation, and the evolution of these fields. By exploring the implications of Eames' quote, we gain a deeper understanding of the complexities and opportunities within architecture and design, as well as the ongoing dialogue between the two disciplines.