If the
Eames films don't appeal to today's eyes and minds, it should be remembered what their effect was when they were new: a fresh look at information, and a novel visual presentation, combining modern graphic design with a highly personal vocabulary and (not least) a unique collection of "stuff."
Now we take some of those pioneering effects for granted, and our eyes are accustomed to being dazzled with today's digital effects. Even the colors have faded (no doubt) -- no wonder it's difficult to feel how refreshing was their impact.
It's ironic, isn't it, to have young Eames decrying the "plastic" chairs made by others, with their inauthentic sources (not "made the way they should be"), when it is they (Modernica) who are trying to present the most correct version of the shell chair ?
If HM and the Eames Office have concluded that Charles and Ray would today choose the more modern plastic material and method (for possible "green" reasons and undeniable production efficiencies), why not applaud someone who is willing to reproduce the original method and material, rather than taking the knee-jerk position of defending their "turf" ? Simple competition ? Understandable, I suppose. . .
Simple Competition
... is done best with witty well designed advertising campaigns. So many companies are remembered for their advertisements. It's a perfect time to stop moaning and start using design instead of bullets.
Charles and Ray's way of solving a problem was with design, not public bitching. They could have publicly humiliated designs and designers that they did not appreciate. But, they got their point across by designing something better instead. People know their design ethics by action more than words. Those who are aware of their words are pulled there by their designs.
My challenge to the Eames Office is to solve this perceived problem with real design.
What does the public want? I am sure that was a question Charles and Ray asked themselves when solving a problem.
If people don't like the new material, regardless of the reasons behind changing it, then they won't buy it. If they won't buy it, then I guess that is also eco-friendly 😉
All kidding aside, if Modernica is making that big of an impact on sales while the Eames Office has the ultimate weapon (the name itself) then there is something wrong with either A. the marketing or B. the product.
Another reason Modernica may have an edge is that they allow themselves to be sold by small and large businesses. Herman Miller decided a number of years ago to sell only through big box design stores and websites. At one time I could buy Herman Miller from a small modern furniture store in my small market. Believe it or not, they starting selling in what I thought was a market unable to appreciate modern furniture. But Herman Miller pulled the cord. "Design Within Reach, Room and Board, and Highbrow only please." There are more small markets than big markets, I believe. Design is for everybody. When you exclude yourself, you get excluded. Easy concept.
Is history repeating?
I feel like we've had this discussion before.
In terms of the letter to Dwell I understand Mr. Demetrios' frustration. Modernica sells knock-offs - not just of the fibreglass chairs, but of many other classic designs. By claiming to legitimately produce the fibreglass chairs they are also legitimizing all of the other crap they sell.
As to the fibreglass/plastic debate yes, the original chairs were fibreglass. Would the Eames have changed the way they were made? While we can never know for sure we can look to other examples of materials changing, starting at the very beginning: The Plywood chairs.
The plywood chairs were originally intended to be formed into a single shell, but the plywood cracked at such sharp angles. The compromise was to split the seat & backrest in two. The chair was put into production but the search for a single shell shair continued. First, in stamped metal chairs that were not put into production, and then in fibreglass. Whatwe see is a continuation of a form with an evolution of materials.
Jump again to the plywood chairs, which ceased production in 1957. In 1971 the Eames began production of the EC-127, which was basically a DCM, but instead of plywood seat & backs they used an injection moulded plastic covered in upholstery. This shows two things. First, again, an evolution of materials within the same form. And second, a clear example that the Eames embraced injection moulded plastics as a material.
Now look to HermanMiller, a company who has a long history of moving towards ecologically friendly practices. It stands to reason that they would explore other opportunities in terms of materials. And to clarify - vitras main claims about environmental impact are in the recyclability of the polypropelyne chairs - something the fibreglas chairs are unequivocably not.
As to the bitchiness of this whole thread
It is irksome that many people here dont take things with a grain of salt and a healthy dose of historical perspective.
Whitespike, perhaps, should be reminded that at first production the plywood and the fibreglass were radically new materials, and I'm sure they met with backlash from folks who preferred 'traditional' materials in their home furnishings. I prefer the fibreglass production, but then i buy vintage. I did, however, buy a plastic production as a gift for someone because I knew she wanted a color that was difficult to find.
Olive - the letter suggests nothing against buying vintage - something I highly encourage -especially to those looking for the feel of the 'real' thing. If you want fibreglass, buy vintage and save the material of both the Modernica & Vitra productions.
SDR - When Herman Miller/Eames/Demetrios decided to change production I'm sure they did so with the understanding that something was inherently bad about the fibreglass. Why would you applaud someone that continues to do something that is harmful?
And as for the whole thing about Dwell - it reminds me of watching one of the Presidential debates: Hillary and Barrack are discussing the US economy and how they are trying to keep jobs in the US - completely oblivious to the irony that they were sitting in blatant Eames Alu Group knockoffs. Here are two people decrying outsourcing - but literally sitting on outsourced products. How can Dwell honestly present a dialoge on design while accepting advertising from a company that is subverting the design process in spirit (while doing a delicate tapdance around the legal aspects)?
I think Mr. Demetrios could possibly have used different language - but truth be told I imagine any single one of us in his position would be doing the same - defending our legacy tooth & nail.
PS. I've corresponded with Mr. Demetrios on the Plywood Elephant and he explained that price is the same reason it was never mass produced in the 40's - its a fairly complex mold process for plywood that is very expensive to produce. Its current production is as a design object, not a toy. I dont fully agree with that, but I dont begrudge Vitra to charge what they will - I probably wouldnt buy it either way.
"Whitespike, perhaps, should...
"Whitespike, perhaps, should be reminded that at first production the plywood and the fibreglass were radically new materials"
Trust me, I don't need to be reminded.
My point is that quality advertising will do much more for the cause than bitching. Apple computers is a good case in point. They do a great deal of PC vs. Mac advertising in an unstuffy, fun way. Making it so damn serious is a big turn off. I get that
My point also is that most design junkies I know would not buy a plastic reproduction. If the design public at large doesn't like the product, there isn't even any need in arguing about its legitimacy. People buy what they like.
I want nothing more than the Eames Foundation to thrive. I'm just rather blunt that's all.
Whitespike
I agree that, for whatever reason, the Eames Office doesnt always have its act together in explaining exactly what or why the new chairs are better. They seem to be caught in some weird vortex between the powerful forces of Herman Miller and Vitra.
I wasnt trying to be snarky in my comments either. I imagine when the first fibreglass chairs came out people were amused/opposed to the new material. To use a horrid example I imagine it was kind of like Starck's plexi pieces - either loved or hated with very little middle ground.
Also - I dislike how much of the above thread focuses on OUR individual wants/needs: price is too high, material is funny, color isnt right - rather than allowing some leeway for the one person who has a fairly legitimate claim to make: Eames Demetrious himself.
SDR
That was my point - the legality of their knock-offs isnt in question, with the possible exception of the Noguchi Coffee table. Whats questionable is the way that they tap around exactly where their designs come from and the legitimacy of them. For example this quote:
"For the first time since 1983, the classic 1950 Fiberglass Arm Chair, often referred to as the most significant furniture design of the 20th century, is being produced by Modernica in Los Angeles, using much of the original equipment that produced the original chairs."
This seems to align themselves in the direct trajectory of the fiberglass chairs. While technically none of what they say is untrue it is certainly misleading. It implies that Modernica originally produced the chairs and is resurrecting their manufacturing process.
Why not simply say something like "The original manufacturer of the chairs has chosen a new material. Modernica feels that fibreglas is a better choice for X, Y & Z reasons".
And I haven't fully read the report Koen posted, but I dont fully agree with him about the ecological impact yet. I have a hard time believing that a material that is recyclable is equal to a highly toxic, non-biodegradable, non-recyclable material. I may yet be proven wrong, but my gut is pulling me in the other direction.
ESU
At one point Modernica was making all the Eames storage units for Herman Miller, where does this factor in to claims that Modernica makes knock-offs. Say Modernica is making Herman Millers ESU on Monday, then Herman Miller cuts ties with Modernica on Tuesday, does that mean every ESU that Modernica makes on Wednesday is a fake? Is the only difference between a real and fake a small oval sticker that say Herman Miller? On another note...How comes nobody like the newer plastic Eames shell chairs, I've had both, I like them better that the old fiberglass ones.
My point...
the whine-y, un-generous tone of the letter. 'Me me me it's all about me and my family legacy'. I can imagine that annoying Charles and Ray as much as the fact that their products are no longer affordable to the masses.
And my stance on licensing, ownership,legacy and copyrights hasn't changed a whit. Caveat Emptor!
"I dislike how much of the...
"I dislike how much of the above thread focuses on OUR individual wants/needs: price is too high, material is funny, color isnt right - rather than allowing some leeway for the one person who has a fairly legitimate claim to make: Eames Demetrious himself"
Why dislike it? He should cater to us ... the buying public. I feel no need to cater to him. The reason that the damn chairs were designed to begin with is for the buying PUBLIC. They did not design them for themselves, or they would not have been mass produced. They need to hear our complaints, we do not need to hear theirs. If they looked at it in this manner it would not be a problem. Don't you think?
I take some exception to the...
I take some exception to the term 'crap' in reference to the Modernica offerings. There is a sometimes fervent brand loyalty on this forum, lacking even a tinge of objectivity or skepticism. Modernica is crap -- why?
If you're going to slag off a company and the entirety of its product, workforce and quality control in such a way, I think you'd better be prepared to qualify your assertion.
And by the way, though I've pointed this out before -- fiberglass shells are anathema, but chrome plating is okay?
If you need any help, please contact us at – info@designaddict.com