the designers of herman miller book design proposal It is clear through a careful examination of the Herman Miller The design of this book seeks to utilize the same philosophies Company’s history and body of work, the astute attention that and ideologies that the designers of Herman Miller ap- is paid to detail in everything that they design. The unique fo- proached their work with. To reflect the simplicity, modernism cus on both function and form is what initially set the Herman and attention to detail that they exhibit in their work in the de- Miller Company apart form other furniture manufacturers. Un- sign and handling of the book. The book should pay homage der the direction of George Nelson, brilliant designers— to the work and careers of the famous Herman Miller designers Charles and Ray Eames, Isamu Noguchi, Alexander Girard and and reflect their personalities and approach to the problem of others, were able to bring modernism to the forefront of the creating something both functional and visually appealing. design world while creating beautiful and lasting pieces of fur- The book will utilize ample white space and simple, consis- niture. As Nelson said in during his final project, “the aim of the tent layouts, letting the furniture and the rich history of the Her- design process is always to produce an object that does some- man Miller Company become the focus of the piece. The de- thing. In problem solving, the limitations are far more impor- sign should reflect the openness of the Herman Miller tant than the freedoms… The only creative freedom that is designers. The transparency and natural qualities of the world worth anything is found in setting up a problem so that it can fused with the man-made and structural. The book should be solved intelligently.” function in a similar way, to allow the reader to interact and This serves as a central ideology of the Herman Miller Com- view the content naturally and seamlessly. This is achieved pany; that every aspect of a piece first and foremost be- de through the careful combination of text and image to avoid signed so as to best serve its function, then to also be handled distracting the reader’s attention from the rich subject matter in the most visually and aesthetically appealing manner possi- and history of the Herman Miller Company. ble. Everything should have a purpose, and nothing should be done without careful thought and examination.

andrew m stauffer - - - plates in color 134 illustrations, including THE DESIGNERS OF HERMAN MILLER DONALD ALBRECHT The great postwar modern furniture designs are classics, because they are still great. Herman the Miller, company that led the officerevolution, is a name syn onymous with the best modern residential as well as contract furniture. Classics by super-designers—Charles and Ray Eames, George Nelson, and Isamu Nogu the Herman Miller for the Home collection. Their from chi—can still be purchased designs, plus the work of more than a dozen other important Herman Miller de photographs, white & black and color in shown and detail in described are signers, from all posters, picnic Frykholm famous the and Nelson by drawings original with the Herman Miller This archives. book is essential for collectors, dealers, curators, designers, and other devotees of modernism. 243

by

albrecht edited

donald Herman Miller Herman The Designers of The Designers

the designers of herman miller 3 - 1119 - 7643 - 0 ISBN M. Stauffer Book and cover design by Andrew http://mitpress.mit.edu London, England Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts The MIT Press and Ray Eames: A Legacy of Invention. Architectural Digest, House and Garden, and the New York Times. Among his books his Times.Among York New the and Garden, and House Digest, Architectural of Charles in the Movies and The Work Modern Architecture Designing Dreams: are of Congress; Cooper-Hewitt National Design Museum; National Building Museum; as such publications for articles numerous written has Albrecht Center. Getty the and at the Museum of the City of New York. He exhibitions has for organized the Library at the Museum of the City of New York. Donald Albrecht is an independent curator and curator of architecture and design the designers of herman miller The Designers of Herman Miller edited by donald albrecht

mit press Fifth printing, 2010 First MIT Press edition, ©2010 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Acknowledgements 3 Introduction 7 All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form by any electronic or mechanical means (including Part One: Designers of mid-century classics 13 photocopying, recording, or information storage and retrieval) without permission in writing from the publisher. Chapter 1: Charles and Ray Eames 15 Chapter 2: George Nelson 77 Design by Andrew M. Stauffer. Chapter 3: Isamu Noguchi 121 Set in the Avenir type family. Printed and bound in the United States of America. Part Two: Designers of other Herman Miller Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data classics—past, present, and future 125 Chapter 4: Gilbert Rohde 127 Albrecht, Donald. Chapter 5: Alexander Girard 133 Chapter 6: Robert Propst 143 The Designers of Herman Miller/Donald Albrecht. Chapter 7: Jack Kelley 149 Chapter 8: Don Chadwick 155 p. cm. Chapter 9: Bill Stumpf 161 Includes bibliographical references and index. Contents Chapter 10: Tom Newhouse 165 Chapter 11: Geoff Hollington 167 ISBN 0-7643-1119-3 Chapter 12: Bruce Burdick 173 Chapter 13: Stephen Frykholm 179 1. Miller, Herman. 2. Furniture-United States. Chapter 14: Other Designers: 191 3. Designers-United States. Paul Laszio I. Title. Fritz Haller NK1412.E18K57 1995 Poul Kjaerholm 745.4’4922—dc20 Verner Panton

94-24920 Jorgen Rasmussen CIP Peter Protzmann Ray Wilkes Tom Edwards

Conclusion 203

Bibliography 209 Index 215 chapter one

Charles and Ray Eames pat kirkham

14 15 Much of the Eameses’ work stands in the best tradition of the of architecture is that which touches the heart,2 then it is not design reform movement (which argued for making high-qual- difficult to understand why Paul Schrader and others have re- ity everyday objects available at reasonable prices), and also in ferred to the work of the Eameses in that way.3 It was not simply the best tradition of modernism (which, from the 1920s on, of- their liberal use of hearts and flowers, their direct appeal to fered a vision of harnessing new technologies, industrial pro- what they perceived as universal truths and the inner humanity duction, and relevant design to the service of humankind). of people the world over, or even the power of their ideas and Charles and Ray Eames belonged to a generation of designers the exquisiteness and affectivity of their compositions and im- who, before, during, and immediately after World War II, were agery that made many of their products so memorable; as in a determined to make the world a better place in which to live symphony, the whole was much more than the sum of the parts. but were not wedded to a narrow or solely stylistic definition of In their passion to convey their enthusiasm to others, the modernism. Without ever losing sight of their serious objec- Eameses “shaped not only things but the way people think tives, the Eameses brought to their products a lightness of about things.”4 Their films, exhibitions, and multi-screen pre- spirit that, to a degree, disguised their commitment and dedi- sentations show them to have been at the forefront of new cation. Their furniture, their films, and their exhibitions delight- thinking about the most effective and pleasurable ways of ed the eye, the mind, and the spirit; they also worked well. communicating knowledge to large numbers of people. Their The Eameses’ work was often innovative, although they al- exhibitions and multiple-image shows, in particular, reached ways insisted that designers should innovate only as a last re- large and largely appreciative audiences. Their design work sort.1 They reveled in the particular constraints of specific briefs was respected by the cognoscenti and, at the same time, pop- and in the rationalistic search for the best possible solution to ular in the sense of being seen, used, enjoyed, and admired by the problem at hand, yet they produced work that has been many. In this they achieved the modernist designer’s dream of described as poetic. If, as Frank Lloyd Wright said, the poetry enriching the lives of ordinary people with quality objects pro-

16 1. Charles Eames/Virginia Stith, 1977. 2. Frank Lloyd Wright, An Autobiography (London, 1977), p. 362.s 17 3. Paul Schrader, “Poetry of Ideas,” Film Quarterly, spring 1970, p. 10. See also Blueprints for Modern Living, p. 52. 4. Walter McQuade, “Charles Eames isn’t resting on his chair,” Fortune, February 1975, p. 98. duced by means of the most up-to-date technology. tween the minimalist frames of the Eameses’ buildings and For every designer who was influenced by the Eameses in mus and Bauen und Wohnen, and department stores.9 It in- The multifarious influences on the Eameses’ work, including their “varied and rich” contents was similar to that between the terms of style, there were others who drew strength from their spired many designers, particularly in Italy, West Germany, ideas drawn from the Arts and Crafts movement, from Frank structure and the content of their films and exhibitions.5 commitments to design as a problem-solving exercise, to qual- France, Britain, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia.10 Lloyd Wright, from European modernism, from Japanese archi- Eames products were part of a shift in postwar American ity at every level, and to engagement with a wide range of ac- Eames furniture was manufactured and distributed by the tecture and design, from “primitivism,” from contemporary taste toward favoring organic over geometric forms, and they tivities, issues, and commercial contexts. They became well Herman Miller Furniture Company, or by firms under license to fine art, from the “Romantic” interior, from Californian modern- found success at a time when modernist design was broaden- known as designers and communicators in the United States, in it, all over the world. The management of Herman Miller was ism, and from a belief in the pleasures of work, have been ing from a movement with aspirations toward the monolithic to Western Europe, in Japan, and in India. After World War II Ja- horrified at the first imitations of the molded plastic shell furni- traced. No matter what the sources, the end result was invari- a pluralism in which alternative aesthetics coexisted more or pan paid great attention to American design, and from the ture but soon realized that this did not stop the upward sweep ably distinctive and informed by a concern with structure; for less happily. The Eameses eschewed exclusive insistence on a early 1950s on the Eameses’ work was publicized there by of the sales curve of the originals. More than 5 million of the the Eameses, designing a chair, an exhibition, a film, or the machine aesthetic, which they used only when and where it Torao (“Tiger”) Saito of Japan Today.6 In India they became chairs were sold in the 25 years after they were first produced.11 front page of a newspaper was as much about structure as was suited them. The Cranbrook experience was crucial to their near-celebrities after the release of the Eames Report, which All over the world people experienced these chairs and other designing a building. Despite this, there was not a single aes- joint work; it validated the eclecticism inherent in Charles’s ear- considered the question of design in modern India in relation pieces of Eames furniture in offices, schools, colleges, and thetic formula that related to every area of their work; the archi- lier designs while extending his knowledge and understanding to small industries and the “rapid deterioration in the design homes. tecture, for instance, favored the geometric forms of Interna- of International Style architecture and design, and it tempered and quality of consumer goods.”7 Insofar as this report led to The Eames House (their only widely known architectural tional Style modernism, whereas a great deal of the furniture Ray’s more purist modernism. the establishment of the National Institute of Design, the work) was celebrated in Europe as proving that the purist, ratio- was more plastic in form. Their buildings and many of their fur- In Eero Saarinen and in Ray, Charles Eames found empa- Eameses had a direct impact on design education in India.8 nalist aesthetic of the International Style could produce habit- niture pieces were minimalist, yet their films, multi-screen pre- thetic and immensely talented collaborators. The furniture he Their indirect influence was felt in many other countries through able buildings. The influence of the Eames House on modern- sentations, exhibitions, toys, and decorative arrangements of designed with Saarinen certainly proved seminal to the later design teachers who took them and their methods as models. ist and “high-tech” architects (particularly Norman and Wendy objects drew on addition, juxtaposition, fragmentation, cross- work of the Eames Office, but it was with Ray that Charles pro- The furniture was particularly influential. Beginning in 1950, Foster and Richard and Su Rogers) is widely acknowledged, cultural and extra-cultural reference, repetition, and excess. duced some of the most visually interesting and technologi- the plywood and plastic pieces received considerable publicity not least by those architects themselves. They, Michael and However, as Esther McCoy has pointed out, the interaction be- cally adventurous furniture of the mid twentieth century. in leading Western European design magazines, such as Do- Patti Hopkins, and others have paid homage to the work of the

18 5. Esther McCoy, “Charles and Ray Eames,” Design Quarterly 98/99 (1974–75), p. 6. Ray Eames and Elaine Sewell Jones, interviews with Pat Kirkham, 1983 and 1991 9. Reyner Banham, “Klarheit, Ehrlichkeit, Einfachkeit…and wit too!” in Blueprints, 19 29. There is also a direct link between the design process of looking at a prob- respectively pp. 184–187. lem from the scale above and the scale below (a process Charles Eames 7. Eames Report, 1958. 10. See Holland in Vorm, ed. G. Staal and H. Wolters (Haarlem, 1987), which illus- learned from Eliel Saarinen) and the filmPowers of Ten. trates furniture very derivative of that of the Eameses by W. Rietveld, U. Gispen, 8. Charles last visited India in January 1978, shortly before his death, and spoke to F. Kramer, and C. Braakman. staff and students at the NID. Ray last visited the NID in December 1987, when she presented the first Charles Eames Award. 11. Gingerich, “Conversation with Charles Eames,” p. 328.

Eameses, not only in the concepts and structures of their build- whom worked in a similar manner.14 Today some of the tech- Original Eamse DCW (Dinning Chair that were screened at the 1992 Sundance Institute Festival were jects and ideas was characteristic not only of “functioning ings but also in their use of Eames furniture.12 niques once hailed as sophisticated15 seem somewhat passé Wood) and LCW (Lounge Chair Wood). well received. I hope that more people will now study the entire decoration” but also of the Eameses’ exhibitions, films, multi- Their exhibitions, films, and multi-media presentations, par- and some of the ideas naive, but the films have aged better Painted, molded plywood, 1946. range of Eames films, including the sponsored ones, without media presentations, toys, furniture, and buildings; if anything ticularly those prepared for World’s Fairs, were seen by great than many other short films of the period (both “artistic” and prejudice, and will judge and enjoy them on their own terms unifies their work, it is this, rather than a single aesthetic. numbers of people. Several generations of Americans were in- “informational” ones) because they have a strong aesthetic and their own merits. Certain features of the Eameses’ work, such as “functioning troduced to scientific and mathematical concepts through framework as well as offering intellectual and emotional stimu- Charles and Ray visited Britain more regularly than other decoration” and the more general use of juxtaposition, addi- them—particularly the exhibitions. Charles’s “deep under- lation. Paul Schrader recognized their significance in 1970, by countries and had a dedicated following there. The September tion, and eclecticism, are not antagonistic to some of those standing of the processes of science and technology” greatly which time the early “toy” and partially animated films were 1966 issue of Architectural Design revealed the extent of the defined as postmodern, and it can be argued that in certain impressed some of the top experts in those fields.13 This and already becoming unfashionable; he argued that they person- Eameses’ influence on British design (particularly on the Inde- ways these features prefigured some postmodern notions and the role he and Ray played in demystifying and popularizing alized “assembly-line art,” gave “greater power to the con- pendent Group, which in turn influenced Pop Art17), articulated practices. This is not to say that the Eameses can or should be the computer deserve greater recognition than they have so far sumer,” and permitted “individual integrity within a humanist a new understanding of their work as offering an additive di- claimed as postmodernists—although I now better understand been given. collective”16—points I have made about other areas of the mension to a minimalist movement and claimed for it a wit rare Deborah Sussman’s comment that it has taken a long time for The exhibitions that were most criticized in their time for Eameses’ work. For Schrader, at that time, the Eameses had in architecture and design and an extensive influence.18 The her to analyze and voice her feeling that Ray, joint head of a being overloaded with text, objects, and ideas suggest that, more to offer in terms of returning a cerebral sensibility to cin- authors writing in that journal saw the wonderful mélange of design office claimed to epitomize the best in rational design, had they been working in the 1990s, the Eameses would have ema than Godard, Rohmer, and Resnais. I would not go quite the ordinary, the old, and the exotic represented and rear- “was not really a modernist, or at least she was doing things I been fascinated with interactive media and “hyperreality.” It so far, but I feel that the Eameses’ films still have something to ranged by Peter Blake and others in Britain during the 1960s as didn’t and don’t think of as ‘modernist.”19 However, if one ac- seems more than likely, for example, that they would have say to filmmakers—particularly about the relationship between a result of the Eameses’ liberating aesthetic, which validated cepts that there was much more flexibility within modernism been involved in developing the communications and educa- the visual and ideas. The films deserve greater appreciation. “the extravagance of the new purchase ‘ gave “courage to than the narrow and until recently dominant definitions allow, tional potential of interactive video, which allows for the dif- Had they been more readily categorizable as either “main- make sense of anything that attracted,” and led to interiors and that many modernisms flourished in the quarter-century ferential exploration of images and information. stream” or “avant-garde” or “experimental,” they would have decorated with “fresh, pretty, colorful ephemera.” The decora- after World War II, one can accept both Charles and Ray as In their day the Eameses’ films had many admirers, some of received more attention from filmmakers and historians. Those tive and apparently lighthearted presentation of serious ob- modernists. The “prettiness,” the information overload, and

20 12. For example, the Hopkins House, in London (Michael and Patti Hopkins, 1975) 14. Schrader (“Poetry of Ideas,” p. 10) cites Wheaton Galantine’s Treadle and Bob- 17. “Eames Celebration,” Architectural Design, September 1966, pp. 432–471.) See 19. Deborah Sussman/Kirkham, 1991. 21 and the Sainsbury Centre, in Norwich (Norman and Wendy Foster, 1974–1978). bin (1954) and Don Levy’s Time Is (1964) as directly influenced by Eames films. also The Independent Group, ed. D. Robbins (Cambridge, Mass., 1990) Ban-

ham, “Klarheit”; and Alison Smithson, “And now Dhamas are dying out in Ja- 13. See Bernard I. Cohen, “Introduction to the Office of Charles and Ray Eames,” 15. National Film Theatre, London, November 1975. The program notes referred to pan,” Architectural Design, September 1966, pp. 447–448. in A Computer Perspective (Cambridge, Mass., 1990), p. 5. Eames films as “sophisticated in technique, dazzling to watch.” Charles Eames spoke at the NFT on November 10, 1975. 18. Michael Browne, “The wit of technology,” Architectural Design, September

1966, pp. 449–457 16. Schrader, “Poetry of Ideas,” p. 13.

the decoration overload evident in much of their work alarmed people who had finally made low-cost mass-produced mod- A collection of various Eames molded reluctant acceptance that some of their furniture was expensive to the rather crude money-making ethos of certain sections of many purists, but at the end of the day the Eameses were un- ernist furniture widely available enabled them to introduce plywood and aluminum chairs, both up- and was destined for the offices of large corporations and insti- the design professions and of the business community. During holstered and unupholstered. doubtedly modernists. They were optimists who believed in “prettiness” in the form of flowers, toys, paper kites, and other tutions and the homes of the wealthy. But, as I have argued, the 1960s and the 1970s, however, many radical younger de- progress and in a coherent, unified, and rational world, the seemingly frivolous items to a movement that had been known this was not a cynical move influenced by market trends; the signers were disappointed that Charles and Ray distanced problems of which were soluble though admittedly immense. for its overriding seriousness. They combined the seriousness Eameses were too idealistic and too intensely engaged with themselves from the “alternative” design movement of those Their work allayed fears that machine-made or machine-age of Enlightenment thought and modernist design principles each particular project for that. If working through a problem years, finding it too overtly political.25 Although they held products were “inhuman” and “impersonal”; however, they with the fun of popular entertainment; in the process, they per- and obtaining a solution fitted in with consumer demand, they strong liberal views on many issues, they never aligned them- considered themselves “functionalists” to the end, believing sonalized, humanized, popularized, and reshaped modernism. were delighted; however, the problem-solving process was selves with any group or movement—artistic, social, or politi- that there were certain basic rational principles that explained The Eameses championed the machine in their aim “to get what interested them most. cal. Their approach to design never challenged capitalism; in- the workings of such seemingly disparate objects as the wing the most of the best to the most for the least” and insisted that Designers who compromised their design ideals by pander- deed, they were held up as proof that it was possible for structure of an airplane and the body structure of a jellyfish.20 it be subservient to human control.22 They wanted their prod- ing to what they read as public taste took little pleasure in the designers to retain integrity and also be commercially success- Their words and writings generally privileged technology, ucts to reach as many people as possible, but (like William fact that it was the Eameses who broke down the barriers to ful. However, they did, to a certain degree, cut against the structure, materials, and function over aesthetics, but from time Morris) they were never willing to sacrifice quality for cheap- popular acceptance of mass-produced modernist furniture in grain of the mainstream ideology of postwar America, fitting in to time they acknowledged that their work was a complex dia- ness. They fulfilled their early aim of reaching a mass market the United States, and even less pleasure in the irony that, in better with older paternalist and populist views than with the logue between these elements—as when Charles parried the with relatively inexpensive furniture, though it sometimes the process, they made a considerable amount of money. In consumerist and competitive ethos of the postwar years or the question of whether function or beauty was more important by proved impossible to retail their goods at the prices they that they always put design ethics before money or fame, the new radicalism of the late 1960s and the 1970s. asking “Which do you consider more important—a man’s heart wished.23 Moreover, as modernist architecture and design in Eameses were role models for many younger designers. (For The Eameses were lucky in that they managed the rare feat or a man’s head?”21 They never doubted the basic premises of the United States gradually shifted from being concerned with example, their refusal of a commission to redesign the Bud- of surviving economically without ever having to resort to modernism, yet they added significantly to its vocabulary and social ideals to providing vehicles for the “American dream” weiser logo because they liked the existing one became leg- “bread-and-butter” commissions. There is little doubt that its terms of reference. Their certainty about their position, their lifestyle, the Eameses shifted from a preoccupation with rela- endary in design circles.24 In the opportunistic years of the without the manufacturing and marketing experience of the dedication to rigorous research, and their reputation as the tively low-priced mass-produced objects for everyday use to a postwar boom in America, the Eameses offered an alternative Herman Miller Furniture Company the Eameses would not

22 20. McQuade, “Charles Eames isn’t resting on his chair,” p. 98. 2 2. Schrader, “Poetry of ideas,” p. 6; Current Biography, 1965, p. 139. 24. Eames Design, p. 149. 25. When Ken Garland eagerly showed Charles Eames one of his radical manifes- 23 tos about the purpose of design, he was surprised and somewhat dismayed 21. Thomas B. Sherman, “Ex-St. Louisan who made ‘Eames Chair,’” St. Louis Post- 23. Charles Eames, Eames Celebration, 1975. when Charles told him not to focus on such “useless things” (Ken Garland, Dispatch, October 22, 1951. conversation and subsequent correspondence with Pat Kirkham, 1991).

have found commercial success on such a scale or quite so Glimpses of the USA (Moscow, 1959). quickly. Their collaboration with that paternalistic company was In IBM they were fortunate to find another “ideal” client. particularly successful because the company’s management, Once again, as with Herman Miller, they joined forces with a which belonged to the Dutch Calvinist Reformed tradition, well-established and paternalistic company, and they never did shared the Eameses’ high-minded ideals about quality in de- any similar work for a competitor. Once again, the company sign and production. The world of the De Prees in Zeeland and was already sure of the importance of design. And, just as the that of the Eameses in Venice were many miles apart in ideol- Eameses had been introduced to the Miller firm by a fellow ogy as well as in geography, but the Eameses (Charles in par- designer (George Nelson), it was IBM’s first director of design, ticular) straddled the gap with consummate ease.26 The Eliot Noyes, who commissioned their work for that company. In Eames-Herman Miller relationship remains a model for man- both cases, therefore, someone in the design community was agement consultants. Once they had entered into a “gentle- responsible for the Eameses’ getting the commissions; it was man’s” business relationship with Herman Miller (it was never not that the firm contacted them directly or vice versa. Various styles of the Eames molded ply- set down on paper), the Eameses never designed for any other IBM gave Charles and Ray generous budgets and enor- wood dining chair with aluminum legs. furniture producer. mous freedom37 (though at the end of the day each exhibit, Also crucial to the success of the Eameses was George Nel- presentation, or film had to meet with the IBM’s approval) and son, who shared their liberal humanist outlook on life and their gained, in exchange, the image of a company interested in the passion for design and who consistently championed them. It pursuit of knowledge and progress and conscious of the im- was Nelson who recommended Charles and Ray to the Herman portance of human beings in the new machine age. In other Miller Furniture Company, who gave them the opportunity to words, the image the Eameses gave IBM reflected their own be part of the first multi-media presentation in the United humanist concerns with education, mathematics, science, tech- States, and who invited them to produce what was to become nology, and history—indeed, they accepted the work for IBM in

24 26. Ralph Caplan/Kirkham, 1991. 37. Ibid. I am grateful to Michael Large for discussing with me the relationship of 25 IBM, Noyes, and the Eameses and for putting me in touch with Molly Noyes.

the first place only because they considered the proper promo- lief in the parallels between science and art and their particular tion of computers a worthwhile cause. and unique ways of seeing things when he noted that “a really The Eameses never disappointed Eliot Noyes (who had ulti- great scientist is an artist. Charles is an artist-scientist. He has a mate control over IBM’s design policy) or the accountants, and beautiful lens:’30 they had a very cordial relationship with the management. Fuller was correct, but his viewpoint was partial. The Eame- However, more than a few middle managers wished Noyes had ses’ special way of designing and looking at things—their lens, chosen less exacting people with whom to work.28 Especially if you like—came from Ray as much as from Charles. At the end when it came to the exhibitions, they demanded a great deal of of the day it was often her “special touch” that determined the IBM‘s staff. Every object, potted plant, screen, display stand, final visual form of a chair, an exhibition, a film set, or an -ar color, and texture had to be just right. To the Eameses there rangement of objects. In the words of the Neuharts, it was Ray was no other way to operate; perfection was the goal. They al- who so often made the difference between “good, very good” The Eameses La Chaise. ways insisted on quality; it was their watchword. They set stan- and “Eames”31 There is no doubt that some people, at the (opposite) dards not only in the furniture and exhibition trades but also in time and since, undervalued Ray’s contribution to the partner- Two thin fiberglass shells are glued to- sponsored filmmaking. ship. Few were as crudely sexist as the British Society of Indus- gether and separated by a hard rubber Contemporaries greatly admired their breadth of vision. Be- trial Artists and Designers, which, when it awarded Charles its disc, and the resulting cavity is filled with styrene. Iron rods and wooden base. sides working in a variety of media and being interested in a design medal in 1967, presented Ray with a red rose. Ernestine Designed in 1948, not produced until wide range of topics, they cared about ideas as well as visuals. Carter of London’s Sunday Times protested “the Englishman’s 1990, by Vitra. Paul Schrader saw the Eames Office as a Renaissance work- innate prejudice against women” and asked “Why fob off the shop; others used similar terms. Charles was, and is, often de- female half of the partnership with a sentimental gesture?”32 scribed as a “Renaissance man” and likened to Leonardo da She was correct about the prejudice (although it is by no means Vinci.29 Buckminster Fuller touched on both the Eameses’ be- restricted to English men), but she did not realize that both

26 28. Ralph Caplan/Kirkham, 1991. 30. Buckminster Fuller, Eames Celebration. 27 29. “Eames Celebration”; Julius Shulman/Kirkham, 1993. Shulman told me that he 31. Eames Design, p. 10 thought Charles Eames to be one of the greatest minds ever—possibly as great 32. Ernestine Carter, “Imports and exports,” Sunday Times (London), October 1, as Leonardo da Vinci, a biography of whom he was currently reading. He stated 1967. that as he read he was constantly reminded of Charles Eames and his extraor- dinary breadth of vision.

The Eameses Executive Chair. From the Aluminum Collection. Upholstered aluminum and wire, 1974.

Charles and Ray preferred sentimental gestures and roses to mutuality, richness, and complexity in the collaboration be- ative and sexual partner. However, to the extent that the Eames him. To a large degree, however, the same was true of him. By more formal tributes. tween Charles and Ray than I at first suspected. Office became their “second home,” one could argue that and large, they both seem to have negotiated living and work- I have put considerable emphasis on Ray’s contribution to Ray’s role was always far more than a silent partner who they shared a space that was part domestic, part work; part ing together over a long period of time remarkably well. the partnership in the preceding chapters not to distract read- “mothered the mind,” provided inspiration, and helped create private, part public. They occupied and negotiated that space Ray’s relinquishing fine art and graphics and working col- ers from the achievements of Charles (once characterized as a an atmosphere in which her partner could flourish.36 Neverthe- in different ways, as has been detailed in chapters 2–7, but the laboratively with Charles meant that they avoided a competi- “one-man think tank, whose restless unconfined brain sheds less, although she was a working designer who received some point I wish to emphasize here is that Ray shared it with Charles. tive situation of two individual “artists” living together and hav- ideas with dazzling brilliance”33 but to give Ray due credit and public recognition, she also did her share of “mothering the She relinquished the autonomy of the housewife for a share in ing to negotiate individual, and sometimes fluctuating, to indicate something of her many talents, including what Billy mind” of Charles, as I have shown in chapter 2. However, running and working in a design office and spending her work- reputations based on their personal creations.38 Within the de- Wilder called her “absolutely perfect taste,”34 what Esther Mc- Charles also gave Ray a great deal of support and encourage- ing day with Charles—a choice that brought her great satisfac- sign collaboration of Charles and Ray, the differences in their Coy referred to as her “rich and audacious imagery,”35 and ment, as she was always at pains to point out, and was protec- tion as well as some frustration. Charles, by contrast, not only training and areas of expertise at least meant that there was what former staff members spoke of as her brilliant and excep- tive toward and “parenting” of her.37 Neither Ray nor Charles shared the experience of building and sustaining a design of- never the possibility of her being considered a pale imitator of tional eye. In order to investigate the working relationship of made any radical breaks from the dominant codes of masculin- fice and working on some extremely rewarding projects with her husband, as was the case with her friend Lee Krasner (some Charles and Ray I have drawn on ideas and issues raised by ity and femininity, but it should be remembered that Ray’s Ray but also enjoyed an autonomous field of activities related of whose work Ray owned) and Jackson Pollock.39 As it was, feminist scholarship, such as the degree to which women have choice (for whatever reasons) to work full-time and not have to clients, commissions, finance, public engagements, and the Ray had to contend with the fact that her contributions to joint been marginalized within design and within history, gender ste- children was not the typical one for an American middle-class “outside world” in general. Ironically, by choosing not to have projects sometimes went unrecognized. She may not have felt reotyping, mutual respect and support, domestic arrange- woman in the postwar years. children, not to be a housewife, and to work full-time in con- competitive with Charles—she adored him and never wished ments, autonomy, “public” and “private” spheres, individual The binary oppositions of public/private and male/female junction with Charles, Ray ended up with no autonomous him less glory than he had—but from time to time she ex- competition, imitation, male “genius,” and “creative couples.” around which so much feminist analysis has centered in the last sphere. I am not arguing that this was necessarily a “bad” thing pressed some frustration at her lack of recognition, although The evidence unearthed over the last few years about this par- twenty years call for some qualification in the case of the Eame- for her or that she did not gain by the tradeoff, but a tradeoff we do not know whether she expressed it to him (and, if she ticular couple has taken me in various directions, some differ- ses. Ray did not remain at home and Charles in the office. In- there was. Ray was much less self-centered than Charles, and did, how).40 Charles’s high public profile (partly the result of ent from those I originally envisaged but most revealing more stead she shared the life of a thriving design firm with her cre- most of her time was subsumed in matters that also involved Ray’s extreme shyness in the public sphere, his reputation be-

28 33. Washington Post, quoted in NFT program notes, London, November 10, 197S. 36. See Mothering the Mind: Twelve Studies of Writers and Their Silent Partners, 38. Significant Others, pp. 9–10. 29 ed. R. Perry and M. W. Brownley (New York, 1984). 34. On Wilder see Carpenter, “Tribute to Charles Eames,” p. 12. 39. Ibid., p. 10; Anne M. Wagner, “Fictions: Krasner’s presence, Pollock’s absence,” 37. Ray Eames/Kirkham, 1983 and 1987. pp. 223–243, in the same anthology. 35. McCoy, “Charles and Ray Eames,” p. 21. 40. Alison Smithson, Jeannine Oppewall, Deborah Sussman and Marilyn Neuhart, respective interviews with Pat Kirkham, 1991. GENERAL BOOKS Blake, Peter. No Place Like Utopia: Modern Architecture and the Company We Kept. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1993. Dormer, Peter. Design Since 1945. London: Thames and Hud- son, 1993. Eidelberg, Martin, ed. Design 1935–1965. What Modern Was? New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1991. Emery, Marc. Furniture by Architects. New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1983; expanded edition 1988. Fehrman, Cherie and Kenneth Fehrman. Postwar Interior De- sign 1945–1960. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1987. Fiell, Charlotte & Peter. Modern Furniture Classics Since 1945. Washington D.C.: AIA Press, 1991. ­———.Modern Chairs. Kolln, Germany: Taschen, 1993. Gandy, Charles D. and Susan Zimmermann-Stedham. Contem- porary Classics: Furniture of the Masters. New York: Whitney Library of Design, 1990 (originally McGraw-Hill, Bibliography 1981). Garner, Philippe. Twentieth-Century Furniture. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1980. Greenberg, Cara. Mid-Century Modern: Furniture of the 1950s. New York: Harmony, 1984; reprinted 1995. Hiesinger, Kathryn B. & George H. Marcus. Landmarks of Twen- tieth-Century Design: An Illustrated Handbook. New York: Abbeville, 1993. Horn, Richard. Fifties Style. New York: Friedman/Fairfax, 1993. Jackson, Lesley. The New Look: Design in the Fifties. New York: Thames Hudson, 1991. ———.Contemporary Architecture and Interiors of the 1950s. London: Phaeton, 1994. Knobble, Lance. Office Furniture: Twentieth-Century Design. New York: E. P Dutton, 1987. Mang, Karl. History of Modern Furniture. New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1978. Meadmore, Clement. The Modern Chair: Classics in Produc-

208 209 tion. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1975. nia: Schaffer Publishing, 1998). ian Institution Press, 1975. typescript in Herman Miller Archives, n.d. Pifia, Leslie. Fifties Furniture. Atglen, Pennsylvania: Schiffer, Herman Miller, Inc. Action Office System. Zeeland, Michigan: University of Illinois. William Stumpf, Industrial Design. exhibi- Pearlman, Chee. “Machine for Sitting.” ID. (September/Octo- 1996. Herman Miller, Inc., 1984. tion brochure. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois, ber 1994). Pulos, Arthur J. The American Design Adventure 1940–1975. ———.Reference Points. Zeeland, Michigan, Herman Miller, 1995. “Royal Gold Medal for Architecture 1979: The Office of Charles Cambridge: MIT Press, 1988. 1984. and Ray Eames.” 12-page packet, April 1979. Sembach, Klaus-Jorgen, et at. Twentieth-Century Furniture De- ———.Burdick Group Pages. product brochure. Zeeland, ARTICLES Schwartz, Bonnie. “2 Chairs, 2 Processes.” Metropolis (May sign. Kbln, Germany: Taschen, n.d. Michigan, Herman Miller, 1992. “A Conversation with George Nelson.” Industrial Design (April 1996). Sparke, Penny. Furniture: Twentieth-Century Design. New York: ———.Herman Miller for the Home. product catalog. Zeeland, 1969): 76–77. Slesin, Suzanne. “George H. Nelson, Designer of Modernist E. P. Dutton, 1986. Michigan: Herman Miller, 1995. Berman, Ann. “Herman Miller - Influential Designs of the1940 s Furniture, Dies.” The New York Times (March 4, 1986): Simpson, Miriam. Modem Furniture Classics. New York: Whit- ———.Herman Miller Pricebooks: Seating & Furniture. Zee- and 1950s.” Architectural Digest (September 1991): 34– D26, obituary. ney Library of Design, 1987. land, Michigan: 40. “Storage Wall.” Life (January 1945): 64–71. von Vegesack, Alexander et. at. 100 Masterpieces from the Vi- ———.Herman Miller Catalog. Zeeland, Michigan: Herman Branson, Michael. “Isamu Noguchi, the Sculptor, Dies at 84.” Sudjic, Deyan. “Playfulness.” Blueprint (October 1994): 29–36. tra Design Museum Collection. Weil am Rhein, Germa- Miller, 1996. Marigold Lodge. Zeeland, Michigan, Her- The New York Times (December 31, 1988): obituary. Tetiow, Karin. “Dock’N’ Roll.” Interiors (September 1990): 146– ny: Vitra Design Museum, 1996. man Miller, n.d. Caplan, Ralph. “Caplan on Nelson.” ID. (January February 151. Hunter, Sam. Isamu Noguchi. New York: Abbeville, 1978. 1992): 76–83. ———.”3 Chairs/ 3 records of the design process.” Interiors BOOKS BY OR ABOUT HERMAN Kirkham, Pat. Charles and Ray Eames: Designers of the Twenti- ———.“Designers in America: Part 3.” Industrial Design (Oct. (April 1958): 118–152@ MILLER AND ITS DESIGNERS: eth Century. Cambridge: MIT, 1995. 1972): 30–31. ———.”25: Year of Appraisal.” Interiors (November 1965): 128– Abercrombie, Stanley. George Nelson: the Design of Modern Nelson, George. Chairs. New York: Whitney, 1953; reprinted ———.“Furniture Best of Category: Aeron Chair.” ID. Annual 161. Design. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1995. New York: Acanthus,1994. Design Review 1995 (July/August 1995). Walker Art Center “Nelson, Eames, Girard, Propst: the Design Aidersey-Williams, Hugh and Geoff Hollington. Hollington In- ———.Display. New York: Whitney, 1953. Gingerich, Owen. “A Conversation with Charles Eames.” The Process at Herman Miller.” exhibit catalog. Design dustrial Design. London: Architecture Design and Tech- ———.Storage. New York: Whitney, 1954. American Scholar. (Summer 1977): 326–337. Quarterly 98199 (1975): 1–64. nology Press, 1990. ———.Problems of Design. New York: Whitney, 1957. ———.“Herman Miller for the Home.” Interior Design (Decem- Wierenga, Debra, ad. “Design and the Office in Transition— Caplan, Ralph. The Design of Herman Miller. New York: Whit- ———.George Nelson on Design. New York: Whitney Library ber 1993). Part 1: A Conversation with George Nelson.” Ideas (No- ney Library of Design, 1976. of Design, 1979. McQuade, Walter. “Charles Eames Isn’t Resting on His Chair.” vember 1979): 1–20. ———.Connections: The Work of Charles and Ray Eames. ex- ———.Changing the World. University of Michigan, 1987. Fortune (February 1975): 96–100, 144–145. hibition catalog. Los Angeles: Frederick S. Wight Art Neuhart, John, Marilyn Neuhart, Et Ray Eames. Eames Design. Nelson, George. “The Furniture Industry.” Fortune 35 (January ARCHIVES Gallery, 1976. New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1991. 1947): 106-120. Herman Miller Archives. Cruikshank, Jeffrey L. and Clark Malcolm. Herman Miller Inc.: Propst, Robert. The Office: A Facility Based on Change. Zee- “Business and the Industrial Designer.” Fortune (July 1949): 92– Photographs and written material on designers, products, and Buildings and Beliefs. Washington D.C.: A.I.A. Press, land, Michigan: Herman Miller, Inc., 1968. 98. the company. Contributors to the database containing material 1994. ———.Action Office: The System that Works for You. Ann Ar- ———.“Modern Furniture.” Interiors. (July 1949): 77–89. used in this project include Linda Folland, Hugh De Pree, Bar- De Pree, Hugh. Business as Unusual. Zeeland, Michigan: Her- bor, Michigan: Herman Miller Research Corp., 1978. ———.“Design, Technology, and the Pursuit of Ugliness.” Sat- bara Hire, Will Poole, and Bob Viol. Quotes by designers not man Miller, 1986. Propst, Robert, et. al. The Senator Hatfield Office Innovation urday Review (October 2, 1971): 22–25. attributed to other sources are from the ‘Designer Bio’ promo- Herman Miller Furniture Co. The Herman Miller Collection. Project. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Herman Miller Research Ostergard, Derek and David Hanks. “Gilbert Rohde and the tional sheets produced by Herman Miller. catalogs. Zeeland, Michigan: Herman Miller Furniture Corp., 1977. Evolution of Modern Design 1927–1941.” Arts Magazine Co., 1948,1950,1952 (also reprinted New York: Acanthus Renwick Gallery. A Modem Consciousness: D. J. De Pree, Flor- (October 1981). Action Office,11 , 114–115, 143–148 Press, 1995),1955/56 (also reprinted At glen, Pennsylva- ence Knoll. exhibit catalog. Washington D. C: Smithson- ———.”Gilbert Rohde: The Herman Miller Years.” 7-page Aeron Chair, 157, 160, 163

210 211