Design Observer :: Join the Discussion http://observatory.designobserver.com/feature/how-do-you-solve-a-problem-like-the-eameses/24008/ en-us Design Observer Group 2011-02-09T13:44:37-05:00 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/1.0
There is no doubt in my mind that Charles was totally in charge of everything the office designed, furniture, films, exhibitions etc. but I also agree with Ralph Caplan on the role of Ray Eames. In my experience there was always a certain tension between Charles and Ray but there was also a great appreciation for each others contributions.

I would hope that young designers would read the book and learn from the Masters about the contributions of the Eamse's as well as their creative process.]]> Dr. Robert Blaich http://observatory.designobserver.com/feature/how-do-you-solve-a-problem-like-the-eameses/24008/#comments 2011-02-09T13:44:37-05:00
What I love about this book is that its author is also the designer. It makes for a more complete and authentic history, at least as the Neuharts see it. But it is such a shame that a story as important as this is set in a delicate digital Bodoni better suited for headlines. The book is truly painful to read at length, no matter how interesting the text might be. Someone — the editors, the publisher, her husband — should have told Marilyn that her book just isn't readable.

In my home The Story of Eames Furniture will play the role of a large and lovely coffee table book. It could have been so much more.]]> Stephen Coles http://observatory.designobserver.com/feature/how-do-you-solve-a-problem-like-the-eameses/24008/#comments 2011-02-03T05:43:58-05:00 imma http://observatory.designobserver.com/feature/how-do-you-solve-a-problem-like-the-eameses/24008/#comments 2011-01-31T07:50:24-05:00 Paulina Leon http://observatory.designobserver.com/feature/how-do-you-solve-a-problem-like-the-eameses/24008/#comments 2011-01-24T00:50:06-05:00
I appreciate the fact that the Eames Office became a much more complex organism, incorporating the talents of other designers and benefitting from their contributions, but I think the famous Eamesian balance of work/play, structure/decoration, and complexity/simplicity is the foundation that enabled their distinct studio culture to emerge.

The comments here and the annoyed reference to "academics" within the Neuhart narrative seem to be struggling with the notion of creative direction and authorship. You never hear people take architects to task for relying on the talent of dozens of people involved in the development of major projects. There is an astonishingly consistent thread through the furniture, graphics, films, and exhibitions that is more than just an accumulation of diverse projects of multiple partners.

I look forward to seeing how the Neuhart book portrays the culture of the Eames office, which is as important a "project" as any individual piece of work.
]]> Abbott Miller http://observatory.designobserver.com/feature/how-do-you-solve-a-problem-like-the-eameses/24008/#comments 2011-01-23T10:00:16-05:00
But what I really feel is that the more people talk about the Eameses the less interested I become, because of what I think is a skewed perspective of industrial design during this era.

Few reading Design Observer would put Donald Deskey on the same level as Charles Eames, but the package designs for P&G that emerged from his office, along with HUNDREDS of other designs of an incredibly diverse nature (ditto Loewy Teague Dreyfuss), I have to believe were equally influential. Dreyfuss was outfitting an ocean liner while Charles was working on the fiberglass chair. Not to be partisan but that round thermostat was in a lot more homes than Herman Miller furniture (OK that was completely partisan).

I'm just trying to say there's a whole lot more to mid-century modern than chairs. Sorry I felt so compelled to say it here! ]]> Russell Flinchum http://observatory.designobserver.com/feature/how-do-you-solve-a-problem-like-the-eameses/24008/#comments 2011-01-20T23:32:09-05:00
I agree totally about the poor design of the book, the type is very difficult to read. The one thing I was most disappointed with was the quality of the imagery. In prior books about the Eameses work I have always enjoyed the photos, as we know Charles took most of them. The imagery in the Neuhart book looks like it was poorly scanned and then presented too large so many of the images are blurry. Since I imagine the originals were 35mm slides, perhaps they should have considered reducing the size of the book so the images didn't have to be blown up so much to the point of being unacceptable—it was a design consideration that wasn't considered. As a result it's not a very handsome book in either design or imagery. Thankfully my library has a number of other books on Charles and Ray's work, it's just a disappointment to anticipate the Neuhart's book's arrival and receive two thick volumes that are so lacking.]]> Charles Hively http://observatory.designobserver.com/feature/how-do-you-solve-a-problem-like-the-eameses/24008/#comments 2011-01-18T12:45:32-05:00
"Ralph Caplan’s wonderful phrase, “uncanny creative control” does seem to encompass the degree to which the Eameses retained authorship within the large and multi-faceted practice that became The Eames Office: after all, it started with the Eameses having the smarts to recognize the genius of designers like Bertoia or Albinson, to hire them, and then to get the quality of work out of them that they did."

Unfortunately, I did not feel that the Neuharts' book illuminated that process of creative control or how Charles (since she/they do not think that Ray had much to do with the running of the office or the design of the furniture) got the quality of work that he did. There is a great deal of detail about the many trials and errors, but much less about what Charles said and did and thought and was aiming for. Their corrective seems to be to create more sub-geniuses.

As for Ray, a) I am not uncomfortable with the word "stylist" and used it to suggest that our ideas about what constitutes design have grown and changed since the 1950s and b) when and if you read the book, I think you will agree that the tone of the chapter on Ray is definitively negative. I'm sorry if I did not make the difference between my opinion, and my interpretation of the book's opinion, clear.

I hope that you will read the book and return to say whether it is indeed a nuanced account, and one that will help future historians. I am not sure that it will. Part of the reason I felt it was important to write this review was that most of the coverage I have seen of the book so far reproduces the images and the same old worshipful history, making it seem what it is not.]]> Alexandra Lange http://observatory.designobserver.com/feature/how-do-you-solve-a-problem-like-the-eameses/24008/#comments 2011-01-18T10:00:43-05:00
If Lange truly does agree that we have to stop believing in Eames as the “lone genius,” than what is the problem with the Neuharts delving more deeply into the issue of those who collaborated with them inside the office? Ralph Caplan’s wonderful phrase, “uncanny creative control” does seem to encompass the degree to which the Eameses retained authorship within the large and multi-faceted practice that became The Eames Office: after all, it started with the Eameses having the smarts to recognize the genius of designers like Bertoia or Albinson, to hire them, and then to get the quality of work out of them that they did. The iterations of the design process, the internal critiques, the articulation of direction and intent, the presentation and interpretation of feedback, the commuication with clients: these are all activities that are as much a part of the design process as drawing or making models, and the quality of a practice literally depends on the coherence of leadership. The wonder of the Eameses is how they actually did it, and how they sustained that astonishing level of work over such a long period of time. So the Neuharts don’t’ provide an analytical history? It sounds like what they provide instead (like in "Eames Design") is more documentation that will be of use to some other writer – a historian? - in the future.

I find it fascinating that Lange characterizes the Neuhart’s description of Ray Eames as a “take-down.” I actually do not think it’s taking anything away from Ray Eames to describe her as the intuitive, less-than-articulate visual designer (“stylist” is a word that makes me uncomfortable!) who had a very different “skill set” than Charles. If “anti-democratic” is an adjective that is supposed to disqualify her from the pantheon of design heroes, than there’s a rather long list of male design heroes who are going to have to get the hook as well. So can we be less judgmental about the “shrieks”?

What has always struck me, as I’ve done any research about design and designers over the years, is how few stories there are on the day-to-day realities of the practices that we now revere for the work produced within them. The Neuharts should not be condemned for complicating the myths – or the histories of others more distanced from the sources - with their own witness. Some of the issues about attribution and collaboration, and the way the office functioned are stories that have been in circulation, due to the large number of ex-Eames Office employees, for years and years. (note that a rather blunt complaint over credit, or the lack of it, within The Eames Office is aired in the recent film on Herbert Matter). I’m glad that the Neuharts have addressed attribution, since existence of the rumors and stories themselves form sort of an alternative or shadow history of The Eames Office. What emerges is a much more nuanced story than that to which to we have had access until now. Isn’t that the ultimate point of the Neuhart’s project?
]]> lorraine wild http://observatory.designobserver.com/feature/how-do-you-solve-a-problem-like-the-eameses/24008/#comments 2011-01-18T02:14:43-05:00
]]> Cris http://observatory.designobserver.com/feature/how-do-you-solve-a-problem-like-the-eameses/24008/#comments 2011-01-17T19:11:18-05:00