I chose Eames for one reason: There's a small chance that I will actually be able to afford something he created... can't be too sure about the other guy... ;)

I chose Eames because his roofs don't leak. While Wright was a visionary, his buildings and furniture were notoriously non-functional and uncomfortable. Moreover, he apparently relished that fact. The Eames, on the other hand, were concerned with ultimate functionality. Charles and Ray Eames without a doubt.

Please note that there is a difference between FRANK Lloyd Wright and Lloyd Wright who was a California architect and FRANK Lloyd Wright's son.

I'm sad that only Charles is pictured and given credit for the Eames' designs. Ray participated and contributed quite a bit and she is usually cited as a co-designer for all of those iconic pieces.

regards,
trillium

I had the same dilemma as ebrown (Wright's buildings leak), but I ended up voting Wright anyway. He was a pioneer of American architecture, of an American vernacular, and also of what I think of as "green" buildings. I know there are people who feel differently, but I would vote for him alone for his beliefs about promoting harmony between the building, the inhabitants, and the environment.

Yes, I agree, please change the entry to Charles and Ray Eames...

I chose Eames but I think this is comparing apples and pears (as we say in The Netherlands)...

They both had a vision of bringing modern design to the masses. "Fallingwater and The Guggenheim" does not begin to cover the variety of FLWs designs, experiemental materials used, and feats of engineering, which scale from small Usonian ranches all the way to hqs of major corporations. Charles AND RAY were wonderful, but FLW's career had was so long and I don't think there will ever be another designer whose work will evolve SO far in a lifetime. Palladio's got nothin' on FLWs career span. You have to start in Prairie style Chicago with Wright and watch him evolve all the way to the Gugg - it is mind blowing to look at all of his work along a timeline.

I came in a bit late for the survey, but for what it's worth, the Eames (forgetting Rae, what were you thinking?). Eames designed for people regardless of their height, weight, etc. Wright designed for people his height. At six-one, Wright sometimes makes me feel like I'm trying to squeeze into a doll house. I won't even discuss how many low beams have almost beamed me (and one in San Francisco that did).

I agree with Becky, but the Eames' can be produced forever, while FLW's work is only available to a select few and, sadly, every year some of his work is demo'd.

Both of these heavyweights were from the midwest!
Just coincidence? Maybe.

eames was a handsome guy, though, wasn't he?

You forgot option c.

(c) Neither.

The idea that Wright designed homes scaled to his own height is a myth. He designed "cozy" scaled homes because the idea of the "home" as protective hearth was a central concept in his architecture. (I agree with the poster above that says you have to start with early Wright, even back to his pre-Prairie School days such as his own Oak Park home and studio and proceed through his career to really appreciate the scope of his genius. Actual hearths figure predominantly as the center of these early designs)

Another key feature in Wright's homes is use of extreme horizontality - his homes have low ceilings because they are low slung, very horizontal designs reflective of the flat, prairie terrain of Wright's Midwest. They are meant to hug the ground, looking as if they are rooted to the Earth itself.

Finally, in a contest between Eames and Wright - its no contest. Wright is one of the most important architects (if not THE most important) in the last 100 years. What Louis Sullivan did to bring office building architecture into the Modern Age, Wright did for domestic architecture. In addition, the great architects of the Bauhaus movement who would go on to develop Modernism were clearly (and self-admittedly) indebted to Wright following the publication of the Wasmuth Portfolio, a Wright monograph published in Berlin in 1910. The Wasmuth Portfolio was like a proverbial flashbulb of inspiration as a young Gropius, a young Mies, et. al. would discover the genius of this 40-something architect from the American Midwest, who was completely reshaping the venacular of architecture out there on prairie. (There's even evidence that Charles Édouard Jeanneret-Gris, whom Wright loathed, was influenced by Wright early in his career, back before he adopted the pen name Le Corbusier.) Rudolph Schindler and Richard Neutra would later move to America just in the hopes of possibly working with Wright.

Phillip Johnson, in discussing Wright's second great office building - the S. C. Johnson Wax Headquarters in Racine, Wisconsin said, in a mixture of awe and jealousy, that where all other architects would take an assignment to design an office building and would build an office building, only Wright would take an office building and transform it into cathedral.

Eames vs. Wright? Please - its not even close. One may be a hero of midcentury design. But the other is a God.

Hear, hear, Dave!

I was wondering what was going on in the thread... very strange indeed to see the Eames' ranked more highly, and for such reasons as that their products can be mass-produced (-??). It's apples and pears, as Jippo said. But apples and golden pears.

Without Wright, there might not have been an Eames.

Falling water, rising mildew.

I named my cat after Charles and Ray, so you can guess my answer...