Talk:Charles and Ray Eames

Untitled

This article could use some good photos of Charles and Ray Eames (there are wonderful ones!) Can someone look into this?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.241.66 (talk) 22:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought it worthwhile to add a note so that people won't get confused between the "Eames Chair" and the "Ames Chair", which seems really easy to do. I inserted the note, but it seems to have been removed.

Here's a picture of an Ames Chair (based on optical illusion): http://www.exploratorium.edu/cmp/exnet/exhibits/group5/ames/

Since I'm a newbie on this, could somebody tell me if this was wrong?

Follow-up:

No, you were correct. I was looking for the Eames chair but didn't know how to spell it. So I found your entry and it clarified the distinction. Thanks!

some ideas to be included?

some important concepts that I think would be nice to include:

discussion concerning the focus on process

banana leaf parable (can this be taken from an audio and translated to text?)

design diagram, at least a description of it.

host / guest relationshihp?

perhaps it all could fall under a heading of "design philosophy"? also.. most architects (Bucky Fuller, F L Wright, Eero Saarinen etc ) have a list of 'works' .. this as a long list for eames, but probably worthwhile. request for comments. .patrick

I added a bunch of that stuff .. if anyone has any pictures they would like to add that would be great! -- Dwxyzq 13:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Charles and Ray Eames

This article should be renamed to Charles and Ray Eames or just Eames. They worked together on most of the projects and she played an important part in most of them. This bias is often seen when talking about great men. Christo and Jeanne-Claude (check the redirect) is working together, but usually you just remember Christo. The Eames Gallery calls itself Charles and Ray Eames Online. Wikipedia has just a stub on Ray Eames and a stub on Charles and Ray Eames. As it is now Charles takes all the credit. All the outside resources are named just Eames, and that is for a reason.DrNumLock 00:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly second this comment; I came here from the Ray Eames article and was shocked but how little information it contained. We're talking about the female partner of possibly the most well-known design team of the 20th century, not a female artist forgotten by time! I thought that perhaps this article might explain more about the couple's work and why she is merited less attention on Wiki than her husband, but there's nothing in the article that justifies her scanty profile. My suggestion is for both articles to merge under the Charles and Ray Eames article and for their seperate biographical details until their marriage to be covered under different headings. Skywaterblue (talk) 00:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I've history merged the three articles according to these comments. Ray's section should still be expanded; and more editing, writing, references and images are probably needed overall to improve the article, but at least Charles doesn't seem to recieve too much credit and throw off the balance with separate articles. There are some photos of the Eames House at that article and the Commons, maybe one should be added to this article. dv dv dv d 02:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why two famous designers share the same page just because they were a couple. They should each have their own separate Wikipedia page. If you want a Wikipedia entry that has both of them, maybe someone should create a new entry for their company instead? Noonehereok (talk) 05:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Good question - consensus was to not to have separate pages for Charles and Ray - the article isn't so long as needing to be split with the sections on Charles or Ray summarized. Couples who have worked together and are notable for their work as a couple are often combined into one article. Having one's own article doesn't make a person more "notable." Since Ray and Charles careers intersected, it is hard to have multiple articles without running into the problem of content forking. If in time the article grows (size of article is over 60-100Kb), a decision can be made to split the article, however at this time (size of article is 30Kb) there is no need to split the article. Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 17:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Charles and Ray Eames-Silhouettes-Communications primer 256kb.mp4.jpg

Image:Charles and Ray Eames-Silhouettes-Communications primer 256kb.mp4.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Article renamed, equally importance

I think both were designers and as such should be given equal importance. The article would be renamed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.11.38.122 (talk) 01:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Eames Category?

It seems to me that there should be a Charles and Ray Eames category. Does anyone have a rationale not to create one? If no comments to the contrary in a few days, then I'm just going to make one. KConWiki (talk) 05:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Separate articles?

Should this article be split into two separate ones? I suppose it depends largely on how notable Ray Eames is in her own right, I guess. What do you think? Sound off below. 69.179.180.159 (talk) 00:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Although known as a partnership, Ray Eames is a separate person with her own personal history. Considering the fact that there has been a history of losing individual collaborations especially by spouses, I think it is important to recognize Ray Eames accomplishments in her own right. See http://www.metropolismag.com/July-August-2013/Architectures-Lean-In-Moment/. This page should probably be renamed Charles Eames, Ray's individual information should move to its own page, and "Charles and Ray Eames" should redirect here. Jeddelicious (talk) 18:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

If you want separate articles they will need sources to show they are separately notable, and that doesn't mean this article shouldn't remain.They are most notable as a partnership.Flat Out let's discuss it 11:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I think Ray is notable, and I appreciate the concern expressed above that Ray's part in the partnership should not be understated. Nevertheless I agree that the long-standing joint article remains the best and clearest way to present our coverage of the two of them. So I support reinstating the redirect that existed until recently. I also note the comment below suggesting that the article could be clearer about their personal relationship, and I would also support appropriate edits to make sure Ray's part of the story is fully represented. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The article Ray Eames was merged into section Ray Kaiser Eames. Feel free to edit and improve the article giving due weight to the contributions of Ray Eames. Gmcbjames (talk) 18:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that there should be 3 articles. One for Charles and Ray as individual biographies and third for the collective work of the office of Charles and Ray Eames and their employees. The work that they are most notable for (furniture etc) was the result of the collective effort by them and their studio. An analogy would be that Jobs and Wozniak have a separate article to Apple.

Nacentaeons (talk)

Why no mention of their relationship in the lede?

From the birth/death dates (and nee' for Ray) you can infer they were a couple but shouldn't the lede mention this specifically? There are other relationships possible and it isn't until you read down further that you can be sure. I would expect to find something like "a husband/wife design team", or "a couple who collaborated on design". I would make the change myself but I am unsure of what is appropriate in this case.

Arbalest Mike (talk) 01:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Added. Please remember: WP:BEBOLD!Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 17:02, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charles and Ray Eames. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070410064026/http://eamesoffice.com:80/index2.php?mod=banana_leaf to http://www.eamesoffice.com/index2.php?mod=banana_leaf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)