hero worship  

I see where you're coming...
I see where you're coming from Heath. Perhaps we should instate a name lineage.... Mies van der Bauhaus, Ray and Charles Cranbrook?
Bauhaus is very much credited for helping Mies towards his visions. Pre-Bauhaus Mies was already on the path to Architecture studing under Peter Behrens, who as one of many developed the German Werkbund. I think it would be fair to say, Mies would've been an accomplished Architect even without the Bauhaus. How accomplished and influential?

Heath
Can you elaborate on what you mean by "the cultures that allowed him to flourish"? It's an intriguing thread.

I only worship ONE hero
(I would actually like to contribute to this thread, but running out the door right now)
http://www.superdickery.com/

Idolatry
is a bit of a bore, admittedly. But even if it's the work that we should be admiring (and I fully agree we should), how else to conveniently and logically refer to it, if not by the one constant to all of it: the maker's name ?
I don't think we need to limit the use of the name, in that regard. It's the over-emphasis on the individual, rather than on the work, that needs to be resisted, I believe. Frank Lloyd Wright springs to mind, as a prime example.
As for avoiding mention of the artist's name, looking instead for the names of his predecessors and influences, I don't quite see the point -- though there's certainly a place for those individuals, in the study and appreciation of the subject. But why put the cart before the horse, as it were ?
Perhaps I (once again) misunderstand the point.

Starchitects are not heroes. Nor do they claim to be.
They are heroes as much as Bernini, Caravaggio, Michael Jordan,
Einstein, Picasso, Ian Thorpe, Keynes, Freud, etc. are.
Figures in history & society who aspired & have inspired "enlightened patrons".
They ascended to the upper echelon of their chosen field due to their contributions. Imbued with distinct abilities, blessed w/ innate talent -
shaped by the environment, recognized a void & addressed a need.
Distinct contributions by distinct individuals.
The merits, cutural & professional significance of their
contributions have been recognized, dissected, accepted, & celebrated
by their peers & the "enlightened" mass.
Celebrate the individual & you are celebrating the "culture" that he's a part of.
We are all products of our environment.
Even if one is holed up in the mountains.
It would be cynical to criticize the glorification & dismiss the distinct
individual contribution.
Give society more credit for knowing & choosing who
will be the beneficiaries of their adulation.

.
No, I think avoiding using names is silly, its just that if it weren't for the Weimar Republic and people like Phyliss Lambert and the American corporate boom of the 60's Mies (just as an example) just wouldn't have had the same oppurtunities, they were fantastic times.
going now, hangover, can't see, ouch,

True
True individual-work:
""It's the over-emphasis on the individual, rather than on the work, that needs to be resisted"".
True the hangover,
(boom of the 60's-fantastic times)
While looking at past opportunities we don't see the ones we have today.
A new party is beginning.
The music is new, old dances doesn't fit.
We can't miss this opportunity. We need to invent our own dance.

Loss
Placing so much value on the individual is dangerous. It removes context, and that atmosphere in which objects and situations are created is inherently tied to their greatness.
Honoring the individual is necessary, as the human brain greatly appreciates shortcuts and indentifying markers. (Imagine if we all had to determine quality for ourselves, rather than relying on branding and reputation)
However, it is too easy for the individual to eclipse all collaboration and seem super-human and God-like. George Nelson, Charles & Ray Eames, Martha Stewart. The very names bring forth images of boundless energy, unrelenting vision, and unquestionable genius. But we all know that these people are merely figure-heads for the creativity and visions of others. That is not to say any of them lack vision, energy, or genius. In fact their successes prove that they do posses such qualities.
But, when looking at someone like Nelson it is impossible to think he alone created ALL of the brilliant things his office produced. And we know he didnt. Same for Martha and Charles & Ray.

Are you sure
that the Eamses used the work of others ? I really hate to see them placed on a par with Martha Stewart, in any event.
In terms of your topic -- originality -- I'd say the Eameses are first, George Nelson a bit below them -- and Missy Decoratrix way. . .down there with Regis Philbin and company. Or maybe she's the Julia Child of decor ?
But maybe I'm just too old. . .

Of Course
Of course the Eames used the work of others. In interviews Don Albinson claims almost exclusive authorship of the 670 lounge. (and we know that's not entirely true) But the Eames relied heavily on the contributions of others, while claiming sole credit: hence Harry Bertoia leaving. I'm not saying that the Eames lacked vision - far from it: their vision is what made them..well...visionaries, along with their willingness to bring other people on board to further that vision. But there is no humanly way possible that they could have done everything on their own.
And I think you're missing my point about Martha. Love her style or hate it, you can't deny that she has a brilliant (and VERY well organized) mind. She understood the connections between branding and product power and autocratic personality long before most of the competition did. Hell, her company MSLiving OmniMedia...is the very embodiment of synergy.

.
Very good point about Don Albinson. I remember reading too that the womb chair protoype was made by an old boat builder, where is his credit? Or for all the chemists and technicians who developed GRP?
I like the way a lot of Danish stuff in catalogues has the designer and often the maker credited.
No hangover, I have food poisoning. Chicken is disgusting.