I may be the only AT reader that thinks Eames is a hideous aesthetic.

Yes, I think you probably are alone on that one.

If you are a big Eames fan ... the United States Post Office just released Charles Ray Eames postage stamps. They are pretty cool. Anything to make bill paying more interesting.

You are not alone dblitz. Perhaps I wouldn't go so far as 'hideous', but it's definitely become an overworked and tired shorthand for 'cool' design that doesn't appeal to everyone.

Well you know there's zillions of design blogs and forums that cater to traditional design, You try them out, rather then bashing Charles and Ray Eames, just a thought

I think it's OK to not worship C&R Eames and still be a true modernist. It's a big tent. I agree that their designs have been overworked and show up everywhere too much. That's unfortunate, because they did some great iconic designs. But they are waaaaay over-exposed.

It would do us all good well to look at these designs in the wild as they intended them. Those rooms are lushly designed, filled with color, and totally livable. No stark and cold museums here....

It might also be good to examine what much of it was made for, or what it stemmed from...
http://www.quonsethuts.org/book/chapter3.htm

And a HUGE area to explore at the Library of Congress, LOTS of pictures:
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/eames/eameshome.html

Many of the images that you'll see need to be clicked on to see the entire image, like here is the entire brochure of their chairs (note the "low price" suggestion):
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/eames/images/vcf36.jpg

Or here:
"Wartime experiments with new materials and technologies inspired the Eameses' low-cost furniture for Herman Miller"
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/eames/bio.html

A prototype:
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/eames/images/vcd11.jpg

And there's more than just chairs...

"The Eameses sought to foster universal understanding of socially beneficial science. To help people understand new technologies and their potential, they produced approximately sixty films, exhibitions, and books for such corporations as IBM, Boeing, Polaroid, and Westinghouse."

Source:
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/eames/science.html

I quite admire them. They sought to unite design, technology and the common man, to bring about modular homes, affordable furniture.

"Early in their careers together, Charles and Ray identified the need for affordable, yet high-quality furniture for the average consumer -- furniture that could serve a variety of uses."

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/eames/furniture.html

It may have started that way, but it is certainly not the case now. The average consumer would not buy those things. However, viewing the basic units and seeing how the design is used by other companies for institutional, educational purposes, then I would guess they are successful.

Their own designs may not be in everyone's home, but the offshoots of their designs are everywhere.

It's quite all right if Eames isn't your thing. As the saying goes, to each his own.

@TRUE BLUE:

Well now that is interesting and puts things in a little different light to me. I would find it interesting to read a little more about the original intent even if I still dislike the look.

My favored design styles are more arts & craft or mission -- I really like that aesthetic. (Also I think mission is in danger of being overexposed too.) It's not like I'm loving the Louis XVI look. I'm also not educated in design, I just learn more about things that I find visually pleasing.

dblitz 1:

mission WAS overexposured...15 years ago.

auction prices for truly rare pieces are still astronomical, but, circa late 1980s early 1990s, anything stickley was gold. the same magazines now hawking midcentury modern were singing "arts and crafts". this lead some of us to explore less tapped areas.

barbra streisand sold all her arts and crafts/tiffany/mission pieces and became an early american/federalist/shaker collector. the robert mapplethorpe collection at sothebsy was auction as cultural event (and chockablock full of mission oak and matt green). and i, of infinitely lesser budget/taste, discovered studio pottery and furniture, midcentury modern, and found/outsider/folk pieces.

this in turn lead to the stickley re-issues and crate and barrel knockoffs you see today. which led to similar forms flooding the unfinished furniture and laminate markets. even home depot sells arts and crafts inspired pieces. and auction prices for arts and craft are....flat.

it is all cyclical. buy what you love and buy quality. that art nouveau and biedermeier furniture that no-one wants today will be back before you can say "house beautiful".

as for original intent, arts and crafts makers and many modernists were not that different. honestly made, affordable, well designed furniture in simple shapes. mass production wasn't even that much of a difference as stickley and the roycrofters did use factories and division of labor. materials and technology and the scale of production are all that separate them in my book and in my house (where they sit side by side).

you should explore nakashima, alexander noll, and the scandinavian and brazilian modernists if you want modernist with more of a craft edge. or for less money, glenn of california or even jens risom (affordable on a good day).

A few responses to the responses. Eames is anything but a "hideous aesthetic" and I am shocked anyone would even say such a thing.

Next, I agree, if Eames is not your thing than go elsewhere. Finally, I also agree with the notion that you should only buy what you like. Don't buy because you think something will be highly collectible. If you understand Charles and Ray Eames, you know they came from that practical thinking. To each his own but cant we all just live and let live

P.S. Back to the article about Gloria Koenig. Her book is wonderful. I was thrilled that I got to meet her at a recent Eames event at the house in Pacific Pallisades.

Dblitz1, how do you think *I* ended up reading about the Eames things? I didn't get why they were so expensive. And why they were so popular. I figured I was missing something, as usual, and the history of items can often tell a story.

There are some designers it seems that just hop on a bandwagon. It's all very superficial. They happened to be in the right place, at the right time, and saw the opportunity to take advantage of the situation.

But with the Eames, it wasn't that way at all. It was more thought out, they seemed as if they really wanted to help and to change the world in a way that makes SENSE.

To get affordable GOOD furniture out to everyone. Stuff that would LAST. Things that could be used for a variety of purposes. The shell chairs could be indoors, outdoors, office, or educational.

The home they made? That wasn't supposed to be just one home. That was supposed to be the beginning of many homes made all over, out of readily available items and to be affordable.

Just that Quonset link is enough to wet your appetite to learn more about what they did and why.
"These ideas continued to influence Charles Eames, Eero Saarinen and numerous other designers, and in 1945 a group of architects were commissioned to design a series of influential houses using steel and glass for the Case Study House program initiated by John Entenza and Art & Architecture. Although the houses that were designed and built in California as a part of this program now have the status of cult objects, at the time they were seen as "capable of duplication and in no sense be an 'individual' performance"."

Compare and contrast with the couple of wacky homes shown on this site recently, the Living Room House and the Ling bed of death house. Those are in no way meant to be duplicated.

As you read more about them, you'll see "low-cost" repeated again and again. They wanted to be able to mass produce items that worked:
"An ethos of functionalism informed all of their furniture designs. "What works is better than what looks good," Ray said. "The looks good can change, but what works, works."

On the shell chair:
This device used molds and weights to stamp metal chair shells. The expensive metal-stamped chair was replaced by a low -cost fiberglass reinforced plastic chair.

On La Chaise:
La Chaise was created for the 1948 "International Competition for Low-Cost Furniture Design." The name "La Chaise" was both a reference to sculptor Gaston Lachaise and a pun on his name. Vitra AG has produced the chair since 1990.

On the wire mesh chair:
The wire-mesh chair, like the fiberglass chair, was a uni-shell design. The shell could be adapted to various base configurations and upholstery types. Ingenious techniques were developed to mass-produce suitable upholstery, and special molds were created as forms over which to weld the wire shells.

On the aluminum chair:
The aluminum chair's concept formed the basis of the office's 1962 Eames Tandem Sling Seating, an institutional multiple-seating system designed for Washington's Dulles International Airport.

They used what they learned during the war to make new products:
During World War II, the Eameses and a group of inventive collaborators designed leg splints, aircraft parts, and stretchers made of molded plywood for the federal government and the local aviation industry. Shortly afterward, the Eameses used the expertise to create their first commercially produced, molded-plywood furniture.

and:
Fiberglass had been used during the war by Zenith Plastics to reinforce plastic on airplane radar domes. Working together, Zenith and the Eameses re-conceptualized the use of the material, creating one of the first one-piece plastic chairs with an exposed rather than an upholstered surface. Zenith began mass-producing fiberglass armchairs in 1950 for the Herman Miller Furniture Company (today Herman Miller, Inc.).

Thinking about this stuff, I began to realize all the good things they did...after wars, all that production for war supplies shuts down. For instance, Zenith would have been out of business as far as using the fiberglass. I mean, how many homes have or need an airplane radar dome? LOL!

And how many times have we needed a leg splint?

But...we always use chairs. Every day. Every where.

It's that kind of reusing or repurposing things that gets my heart beating excitedly. All the factories that shut down all over the world, because there is no use for what they make anymore. What if those factories could continue doing what they do, and have their products repurposed? People would have jobs. There wouldn't be all these sad little ghost towns around a former busy factory.

It makes me want to go find a shell chair, and run my hands over the curves and say "Yeah. That's what it's all about."

OK, OK -- I repent my evilness!!!

I promise to go find a book on Eames and read about it before allowing myself any further snarky comments.

I don't think I'll end up liking it any more than I do now, but at least I won't be stupid.

Between the "trendier than thou" contingent who appear to see modernism as just a passing fad that they're bored with, and the conservatives/traditionalists who prefer the Martha Stewart look, there appears to be a fairly vocal minority of people on this site who don't really get it. To each his own. But if you don't like it and it's not your thing, fine, move on. But please don't spend your time criticizing other people's tastes. And calling one of the most significant designers in history "over-played" is just silly.

Dblitz1: LOL!

There's plenty to read to get you started at the Library of Congress. Tons of images.

And I never said you were stupid. I didn't get it either. That's why I did a bit of reading.

I've never sat in one of those chairs. So I don't know if they are comfortable or not. But they are practical. Not because of the price, that's for sure. They aren't going to shred or wear like fabric, the fiberglass chairs.

And as far as I know, they can be washed or wiped down easily. That makes sense to me. If my cat is to yak up a hairball, better to be on a wipe-off surface than a fabric surface.

I drove a fiberglass car for years, and it didn't fall apart (except when people ran into it).

While I might not be able to have those things, those chairs, or they may not be comfortable any more than those school chairs were...I can APPRECIATE what they did. The Eameses.

A couple of links on La Chaise...

The chair:
http://www.luxury-gadgets.com/2006/03/02/la-chaise-by-charles-and-ray-eames-1948/

The sculpture by Lachaise:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Gaston_lachaise_floating_figure.jpg

Neat, huh?

Suddenly it's as hip to bash Eames and MCM design as it was a few years ago to collect shell chairs, it seems. As far as I am concerned, these designs are classic, beautiful, and just plain "good". Nothing's changed that opinion yet, and I doubt anything will. To each their own.

Here's another good video to watch, from a home show on NBC that aired in 1956. My husband and I like their furniture, videos, sculptures, etc. but found it more interesting to watch because of the time period. Watch Ray and how she came across (and then disappeared early on) in this video. I guess it made us think about women's roles in life/business, in the not so distant past. We're sure she had much more of an influence in the work but she sure played it down............or maybe she was just being modest :)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8915508266195133792

THAT IS INCREDIBLE! Thanks typediva!

You can pick up how the hostess seemed to downplay Ray's role. And yet you can also see how Charles did not do that...

When Ray gave the floor back to Charles to talk about their past, Charles discussed Ray's background in painting first.

It's a subtle thing, but a meaningful thing. Tons of subtext happening there, beneath the seemingly polite banter.

At a time when women were often just "The Mrs.", it is important to say that she was MORE than that. But if SHE (Ray) had gone on to discuss her credentials and contributions, it would have totally turned off the home audience and sponsors (of the time)...

So that it was up to Charles to point out that she was indeed part of the team, and Ray to point out that there was more than just them, there were other people in their offices. And to point out that they were able to produce what they wanted for the company Herman Miller. That Herman Miller as a company did not push or shove it's designers.

Which is pretty much what I expected to come from them, some kinds of humbleness and true modesty, while having brilliant minds.

lololol Eames=ugly and I'd never have any of that crap someplace I live. It's still good design, and no I'm not going to look anything up or learn about their ideas and blah blah blah. dblitz 1 no need to eat your words...

I also missed the memo that AT was an Eames-loving-all-haters-must-leave website.