Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Heather Bourgeois
Heather Bourgeois
American Studies 470
Dr. Rossi
4/23/09
Without even realizing it, people move throughout spaces, sitting, standing and
existing. They cook, clean, sleep, eat and shower in the spaces of their homes, work and
other buildings. These places are filled with furniture. And while these spaces and
furniture may seem unimportant and cluttered with stuff, they have an affect on our lives.
The space
we live in
and the
furniture that is in it directly affects how we feel about our lives, our moods and the way
Whether we have a good night’s sleep or bump our heads on the top of a cabinet, slam
our fingers in our dresser drawer or trip up our stairs, our days are dependent on our
comfort and our coexistence with the things that fill our space.
The people in the art world who design the objects that have this effect on our lives are
furniture designers, architects and interior designers. They decide what furniture works
with styles of the year, past and future styles, and design the actual frames of furniture
and their fabric. These designers also set up the furniture and produce full scale drawings
of all of the pieces, how they work with other elements of the room and also draw the
buildings which hold these objects. Some designers take on all three roles, working in the
idea of Total design, where the architect designs the home or building and all of the
furniture and even the interior decorating and design inside of it. Two of these designers
Many people in the art world see Frank Lloyd Wright as the greatest American Architect.
What few people understand is how little he took into account the idea of comfort and it’s
importance to the client and the piece itself. I am studying Eero Saarinen and his work in
contrast to Frank Lloyd Wright to find out why there is a lack of research and recognition
on his architecture and designs and to help readers understand more about the architect
who should be known as the greatest architect of all time but is relatively unknown and
severely underestimated. This will also help readers to understand the importance of
comfort in design and how the way American values and ideals of comfort are shaped by
design.
from their imaginations, to the paper and then from concept to reality. They create the
spaces we live in, and because we most of what we do revolves around our homes; and
our homes become an essential part of our lives. We spend a large amount of time in our
homes, in our furniture, too much, in fact, not to love where we live and what we live in.
Therefore, The architect who we call ‘the greatest architect of all time’ needs to be one
who takes this into consideration. This, I believe should be Eero Saarinen, because unlike
Frank Lloyd Wright, Saarinen took into account the comfort of his client when building
his homes and furniture and how they would use it and in what room, while Wright was
focused more on traditional art elements and organic design, as well as monetary gain.
Wright became so popular and famous that people sacrificed their comfort to have pieces
and homes that he made, while Saarinen, who created pieces that met the customer’s
needs flew under the radar, unrecognized as the true great American Architect.
In this paper I will pose a number of questions, asking first why there is a lack of
recognition for Eero Saarinen and I will call into question why Frank Lloyd Wright is
known as the Greatest Architect of all time and not Saarinen. Of this I ask-what are the
requirements attached to this title. Of Wright I ask, how can you be the greatest architect
This relates to the large field of American Studies because one could wonder what this
says about the way we live as Americans? Are we more likely to choose style, design and
Through my research and close readings of both of the architect’s works and the use of
Vincent Scully, one of Eero Saarinen’s greatest critics and Frank Lloyd Wright’s most
famous biographic writer, we can see the opposition to Frank Lloyd Wright. This will
Saarinen’s work needs to be reexamined so that he too can have the respect and
Frank Lloyd Wright and Eero Saarinen were complete and total opposites in everything
from their designs, architecture, interior design and furniture design and also in their
personalities. They were complete opposites both stylistically and conceptually, from
how their pieces were completed down to the very thought processes behind them. Both
took the individual client into account, as well as form and function, but Saarinen was
more about the form than function, while Wright thought that form and function should
be one. Saarinen also took into account comfort in his furniture, which Wright did not.
He took into account how every aspect of his furniture would be integrated into his home,
Saarinen’s designs were so different that “As Philip Johnson later said, nobody would
believe that many of Saarinen’s buildings could be by the same architect “because they
represent such violently different attitudes” (Roman 14). These violently different
attitudes are also existent when making comparisons between Frank Lloyd Wright and
Saarinen in their furniture design in a stylistic approach. Conceptually they are very
similar, with the idea of a holistic, organic approach to architecture and design, but
stylistically they are completely different. Saarinen uses curvilinear lines and forms to the
body for comfort and organic shape, while Frank Lloyd Wright considers nature, but not
in the aspects of his client and the nature of how long they may be able to take a seat in
his chairs. One of the formal elements of design, line, is especially important in critiquing
both of these designers’ pieces. The curvilinear lines of Saarinen’s work are much more
effeminate and suggest a softness and warmness that is not conveyed by Wright’s hard
They are both very simple designers, keeping things to a bare minimum, perhaps a
I believe this did not just influence Saarinen and Charles Eames in their organic design
competition but also in their future designs. Both Saarinen and Wright fought against
traditional and classical designs to create modern, yet out of the ordinary and amazing
pieces of architecture and furniture, but came out with completely different designs. The
time after World War II and furniture and homes being mass-produced left a time for
gain for both designers. People had money and could suddenly spend it, with the rise of
the nuclear family and notions of Americanism. This left great opportunity for building,
and both of these great architects took advantage of this to design some of their most
amazing pieces, like Wright’s Falling Water at Bear Run, PA and Unity Temple in Oak
Park, IL and Saarinen’s Gateway Arch in St Louis and his TWA Terminal at JFK
Airport. By looking at these four architectural structures and the furniture created by the
two architects, we see the differences in their work stylistically and conceptually in order
Airport show his strength as an architect and his ability to compete in the design arena of
designers like Wright and arguably making him a greater architect than Wright. By
looking at both Saarinen and Wrights work, one can see the great abilities of both of the
designers and how their work changed the face of design. Also, by looking at their
designs together and in contrast, one can see how Saarinen might have been overlooked,
why this is wrong and why he should be looked at as the greatest American architect of
1962, and was one of Saarinen’s most famous structures. Although he is still not as
critically acclaimed or as popular as Wright, the structure itself has the ability to stand up
to Wright in terms of design. TWA, or Trans World Airlines hired Saarinen to create the
structure after seeing his work for General Motors Technical Center, and Saarinen began
his research on the structure. Because it was for an airport, naturally Saarinen had to take
into account his client, only this time; it would be for hundreds of thousands of clients
daily, not just the one commissioning him to do the project. Saarinen was famous for his
curvilinear lines, in contrast to Wrights hard and strong straight lines. He chose “rounded,
pseudo-triangular” lines so that the “curved plan was also a response to the building’s
site” (Roman 43). Saarinen’s abilities as an architect area also shown in his objectives for
the TWA Building, in his book “An Architecture of Multiplicity”, Antonio Roman writes
that Saarinen’s other principle with the Terminal was to design “a building which the
architecture itself would express the drama and specialness and excitement of travel”,
Roman also explains that this was “evident in the shell-like roofline…it’s swooping,
uplifted form was specifically intended to convey a feeling of motion and lightness”
(Roman 46). His greatness in architecture can also be described within the Terminal in
his ability to design in terms of sketching. He pushed boundaries in ways that Wright did
not, which I believe also elevates him to Wright’s level in terms of pushing the envelope.
Saarinen pushes the envelope in design by using the TWA Terminal so that it represented
the first case in design that presents “a unique case in contemporary architecture, perhaps
the first one documented in which the inverse procedure was followed: First they built
models and then they used the small structures to elaborate drawings” (Roman 46).
According to Roman, through the Terminal and his process for design, Saarinen
designs. Roman explains the importance of his work with models on the Terminal, saying
that the work shows the importance of the process because of the importance of “process-
making rather than mere project-drawing. Working with models, with a methodology
Unfortunately, Saarinen died before the structure was completed. Only one of its ‘flight
wings’ was completed. These wings were supposed to be reminiscent of bird wings,
taking flight and freedom. He designed the project during the space age, and the large,
curvy lines and free flowing space made the structure open both on the inside space and
the outside lines. “Many critics associated the terminal’s form with a bird spreading its
wings. Saarinen himself described his first proposal for the terminal as ‘pigeon-toed’ and
later referred to the building as a ‘Leonardo da Vinci flying machine’. Publicly, however,
he maintained that any association between his design and any sort of winged creature
was purely unintentional. ‘The fact that to some people it looked like a bird in flight was
anything other than a piece of architecture is purely in the eye of the beholder or in the
(Roman 61).
D. Roosevelt.
This structure itself relates to the wider field of American Studies because it has
connections to the expansion of the west, manifest destiny and other ideas that are part of
greater themes in the American Studies discourse. The theme of the project was supposed
133). His buildings “used dynamic forms and structural innovations to capture the
optimism of mid-20th century America, while their variety came to represent a national
This project also pushed architectural boundaries. “At the time of its construction, the
structural engineering, compared the structural behavior of the arch’s triangular section to
a blade of grass” (Roman 132). The structure stood at 632 feet at its tallest peak and
“The hollow interior of the arch…was used to shelter a staircase and mechanical
transportation system that would ferry visitors up to the arch’s peak” (Roman 133).
The structure is a tall arch and a prime example of Saarinen’s style. He chose an arch in a
hyperbole shape, with intense mathematical calculations and high arches. It stands on a
lawn with many other buildings surrounding it, but is not obstructive of the views of the
other buildings. From far away, it looks very thin, but up close the structure itself is quite
large and livable. It houses elevators and staircases and a viewing tower at the top. It is a
great example of the level of strength in Saarinen’s design because it shows how grand it
could be, how in depth his drawings were and how complicated. He is not simply
designing a room, but a structure that is over six hundred feet tall and has only two sides
On the other side of the design spectrum stood Frank Lloyd Wright. Popular, driven by
money and success and the ideals of organic design, he created works that shocked as
well. However, Wright had much more visibility in the design world than Saarinen and
had much less criticism for his work. To this day he is still more popular, as fans consider
One of the most iconic structures that Wright designed was Falling Water at Bear Run in
Pennsylvania. It was created for the Kaufman’s of the Department store fame as a
weekend home. According to the website for the Kaufman’s and Falling Water, it was
built over a thirty foot waterfall and “doesn’t appear to stand on solid ground”. It was
However, I challenge the reader and viewer of architecture to contrast this structure and
Both of Saarinen’s designs broke boundaries in ways that even Wright didn’t and I
challenge the reader to use those structures as comparisons to Wright when evaluating
Falling Water was designed in a much more constricting way than any of Saarinen’s
designs. He “limited the client with the color palette at Bear Run so only two colors were
used. Ochre for the concrete and Cherokee Red for the steel so that Wright could have his
to Saarinen, whose free flowing; curvy lines and open spaces made the client feel free
and loose, while Wright made them feel confined to his expectations.
Carla Lind, writer of the book The Wright Style says in her section on Falling Water that
Wright was moved by the nature of Falling Water. One of Wright’s biggest passions and
inspirations was nature, and Falling Water was exemplary of his work. “Wright was
moved by the beauty of its rock ledges, lush foliage, and rushing waters over Bear Run.
WHAT IF THE WRIGHT WAY, IS THE WRONG WAY? 1
2
The native vegetation, especially the rhododendron and mountain laurel, flourished in the
moist shade….Built into the side of the hill, and over-not across from-the picturesque
ideas behind Falling Water. She wrote “Although there are precedents for Falling Water
in his own work, a new vision in present in those hovering, abstract, concrete slabs. There
is a clear connection to the European Modernism that Wright spurned; he had obviously
studied it, although the application he chose to make was organic in its relationship to the
natural site. Unlike European buildings that maintained a cool aloofness from their
surroundings, Wright’s slabs were tied to the earth, physically and symbolically, with
rough local stone and natural textures and colors” (Huxtable 208-09). She also notes
“legend has it that the house was designed almost instantaneously, under the pressure of
an impending visit from Kaufman, who had been waiting impatiently for drawings”
(Huxtable 209). This shows Wright’s talent as an architect and his capabilities. However,
it
is
interesting to compare the talent of Wright who could come up with a drawing almost
instantly and have it be considered one of the most famous and best examples of
2000, the American Institute of Architects voted Falling Water the Building of the
Century” (Huxtable 212). What I question, as a viewer and critic of his work, is why
Falling Water is considered this, and not Saarinen’s work. I question what makes one
work better than another or the best? Another of Wright’s biggest inspirations was Unity
and his religious background. He grew up with a Unitarian background and this guided
his passion and desire to build Unity Temple in Oak Park, IL. He built this church
“without a steeple, saying ‘Religion and Art are forms of inner experience’” (Boulton
43). Wright was very much influenced by money and according to Boulton “throughout
his life Wright usually created his best architecture when he had an unlimited budget-or a
severely limited one. Few commissions tested his abilities to design on a shoestring more
than Unity Church. The congregation of about four hundred could afford only $45,000 to
build a structure to house both their religious services and social activities” (Boulton 58).
So, Wright was limited by money in this particular project, so he built the church out of
WHAT IF THE WRIGHT WAY, IS THE WRONG WAY? 1
5
concrete, which was inexpensive, and used wooden forms to hold it in place, according to
Boulton. “The result was a structure of simple but powerful massing that reflected a
perfect unity between the nature of the material and the needs of the congregation”
(Boulton 60). In the inside of the temple, “There is no steeple pointing up to a "God-Out-
There" in the distant heavens. Instead, you find a remarkable sacred space, a temple that
stands foursquare, where no one is more than forty-five feet from the pulpit, where the
congregation can see each other, and where all are invited to look into other human faces
According to the website of Unity Temple, “In recognition of its historical and
architectural significance, the U.S. Department of the Interior designated Unity Temple a
one wonder, is it because of lack of publicity, popularity, fame, money, quality or design?
The two designers were different in more ways than just their architecture. “Perhaps the
Saarinen about Frank Lloyd Wright. Saarinen regarded Wright as the greatest architect of
his time because of Wright’s holistic sense. Of Wright, Saarinen said: “He did not
conceive structure separately; his structure, his funny decorations, his spaces, his lighting
were all one thing. Today we have all this ‘icky’ kind of architecture which is taken a
little from here and a little bit from there.” It was this “icky” approach to design that
However, both believed in the idea of Total Design, where the architect took on the roles
of the building designer (traditional architect) as well as the interior designer, who
furnished the space and the furniture designer, who designed the pieces that filled the
this idea of Total Design come the ideas of Furniture Design and how the two differed on
Saarinen’s architecture was stylistically much curvier, free flowing and fluid. He used
long lines and open spaces, where one could feel unlimited in mind and soul, and
structures reflected his ideals. Also like this, was his furniture, which also took on free
flowing, curvy and long lines. It was comfortable, formed to the body and could
withstand long amounts of time in it. Three of these pieces were Saarinen’s Grasshopper,
The Grasshopper Chair has a sleek and curved back, designed not straight and to hurt
your back, but to form with the natural line of your back so that you are more
comfortable. The bottom of the chair lifts ones upper leg up and puts your body into more
of a fetal position so that it is more natural and comfortable and can hold the body and
make it better able to sit in it for long periods of time. According to the Knoll Museum
website, “The Grasshopper chair was the first chair of many he designed for Knoll. The
frame is made of laminated wood, which was the only material and process available at
modern furniture, Saarinen’s Tulip Chair was “In a 1956 cover story in Time magazine,
Eero Saarinen said he was designing a collection to "clear up the slum of legs in the U.S.
home." Later that year, he completed his Pedestal Table and Tulip™ Chair Collection
(1956) and obliterated the "slum" by creating a cast aluminum base inspired by a drop of
high-viscosity liquid. The platinum enamel has a clear satin finish, while the black and
white frames are reinforced bonded finishes that maintain their gloss through years of
use. The comfortable Tulip Armless Chair has a swivel seat with a padded cushion.” This
shows that Saarinen did have recognition for his work, but not nearly the level of Frank
Lloyd Wright and his architecture, which received recognition not from the media, but
from Architects and others in the art world. Perhaps most important to Saarinen’s
furniture contributions was not only the Pedestal series and his Tulip and Grasshopper
Chair, but his Womb Chair. This very chair epitomizes and proves my argument that
Saarinen, unlike Wright, took into account the comfort of the client. The piece is full of
circular, curvilinear lines, and forms to the body of the person sitting in it. He designed
the chair for his wife, Florence Knoll, because she challenged him “to create a chair that
she could curl up in” (Design Within Reach). So, Saarinen created a chair that had an
“enveloping, lap like form” and “perfectly facilitated a relaxed sitting posture and a
sublime feeling of security. Additional seat and back cushions and the coordinating
Womb Ottoman provide a further degree of lavish comfort” (Design Within Reach). With
Saarinen, the idea of comfort in design is epitomized in the Womb Chair, which is
“considered by many to be one of the most comfortable contemporary chairs ever made.
When conceptualizing the Womb chair, Saarinen was guided by two considerations,
WHAT IF THE WRIGHT WAY, IS THE WRONG WAY? 1
8
comfort and the unity of space and architecture” (Fehrman 24). Fehrman also explains
that Saarinen was largely concerned with a few things, such as “human anatomy and it’s
relationship to the furniture” and also ways to “accommodate ways in which we really sit,
not in the way we ought to sit” (Fehrman 24). This was important in contrast to Frank
Lloyd Wright, “whose main concern was the way the chair would relate to the
Antonio Roman explains how this became criteria in Saarinen’s original designs, “The
very notion of comfort had essentially been absent from the discourse of the avant-garde
for some time. They preferred functionalist criteria when considering housing and
furniture” (Roman 99). Saarinen understood that people today do not sit the same as our
also includes a quote by Saarinen himself explaining the need for furniture that is
designed around the idea of comfort and the client and also still involves the history of
furniture design. Saarinen said, “I designed the Womb Chair because there seemed to be
a need for a large and really comfortable chair to take the place of the old overstuffed
WHAT IF THE WRIGHT WAY, IS THE WRONG WAY? 1
9
chair. These dreadnoughts disappeared from modern interiors…But the need for such
chairs has not passed. Today, more than ever before, we need to relax” (Roman 99).
Roman goes on to explain the human need to relax and how Saarinen was influenced by
the field of Psychology, ideas of comfort and relaxation and the way Saarinen upheld
chair by saying “The Womb chair also attempts to achieve a psychological comfort by
providing a cuplike shell into which you can curl up and pull up your legs”, and Roman
psychological orientation” (Roman 99). By using Roman’s analysis and the quotes from
Saarinen, one can see how in depth an interior designer, furniture and architect must go to
interpret the needs of his or her client. I propose that all designers should do this, because
their main focus should not only be the design but the needs of the client, and especially
in furniture design, it is important that these needs are taken into account, especially
comfort.
In this particular situation with the Womb chair, Saarinen fully takes into account the
comfort of his client, which also happened to be his wife, so that she was completely
comfortable, in a fetal-like position and could curl up in the chair, rather than building
and designing the piece specifically to be cohesive with the rest of a home or structure.
This way, the piece will conform not to the building, but to the person.
In all three of his chairs, the Grasshopper, Tulip and Womb Chairs, “Saarinen’s process
pushed the field of furniture design to its limits. By looking closely at the way people
actually sit-or slump-he forged new forms and structures that, in his search for meaning,
human experience and the new challenges involved in contemporary life” (Roman 105).
Although they both Wright and Saarinen sought to create organic designs that worked
with nature, they couldn’t have been more different stylistically. Saarinen, as previously
mentioned, used flowing, curvy lines and comfortable fabrics and forms to work with the
shape of the body and help the body be able to sit in the piece for long periods of time.
rests with no padding, a short back and very little distance between the space for knees
and the foot when sitting, while his dining room tables had tall, straight backs made of
hard wood. The seat was also made of wood with a small lightly cushioned padding on
the seat. His bold, hard and strong lines were uncomfortable and his furniture, made
entirely out of wood and very little fabric (if that was even included), were not designed
to the natural curve of one’s back or the shape of the body. They were not meant for
leisurely activities and do not accommodate the body and relaxation. Relaxation is a vital
part of the idea of comfort, and my thesis. I believe that the architect, designer, and
interior designer we consider or claim as our ‘Greatest architect of all time’ should be one
who takes into account their client and their comfort and relaxation, because as a race, as
humans, we work hard. We deserve to be able to relax and our lives are very stressful.
Because we spend a lot of time in our furniture and in our homes, we need to have
furniture that complements our lifestyle, and an architect we call the ‘greatest’ should
also complement this. The architect I believe does this is Eero Saarinen.
Unfortunately, for the last century most of America has not agreed with my point of
view. Many people in the art world view Frank Lloyd Wright as the greatest American
architect of all time, while Saarinen flies under the radar. However, I believe Saarinen
was an amazingly detailed, thorough and talented architect who took into account his
client’s needs to a deeply in-depth level, analyzing not only their immediate needs and
wants for the space, but their psychological needs, and how their emotions and
psychology affected the way they lived and how their furniture and the rooms they lived
in affected them.
people of the United States, but by critics, art historians and the American Institute of
Architects, which recognized him in 1991 as being the Greatest American Architect of all
time. (http://www.pabook.libraries.psu.edu/palitmap/bios/Wright__Frank_Lloyd.html)
Saarinen was also recognized by The American Institute of Architects for their Twenty
Five Year Award for his works, like The Crow Island School in IL in 1971, Christ
Lutheran Church in 1977, Dulles International Airport Terminal Building in 1988 and the
Although he was appreciated by the American Institute of Architects, he was also harshly
criticized for his modern architecture and designs, especially by Vincent Scully.
According to Roman, Scully “railed against Saarinen’s tendency to use whammo shapes
in a critique that can only be described as hostile” (Roman 60). He frequently reviewed
his work but argued against it, saying that he had “no identifiable style: one explanation
for this is that Saarinen adapted his modernist vision to each individual client and project,
This is especially interesting because Vincent Scully is one of Frank Lloyd Wright’s
biggest supporters and researchers and has written many books on him. Frank Lloyd
Wright’s biggest themes were about designing and creating homes that were harmonious,
and this translated into his overall pattern of style and how his homes and buildings were
designed. It could be seen and anticipated that although he would think outside the box,
one also expected him to and his designs were consistent, stylistically. Saarinen’s designs
were inconsistent, but this was because he kept the client in mind, designing to each
years. In design, one must not let their own design preferences take over. The architect,
interior designer and furniture designer needs to take into account the needs of the client,
their psychology and what will make them feel most comfortable, rather than being
consistent, but not giving the client what they need, only what you want. Wright
consistently gave the clients great pieces, but he gave them great pieces that aligned with
his vision.
The Falling Water house is a perfect example of that. Wright designed the house so that it
only had two paint colors, constricting the creativity of any future homeowners, and he
consistently did this in his structures, so that he could exhibit his need to control by
designing everything in the home, from the roof to the floor, the chairs to the lamps and
the colors of the paint, and everything had to be so detailed and so harmonious that the
inhabitant was lost in the home, and could not find themselves.
This is still true today, because many homeowners and furniture shoppers consider homes
money. However, it can be compared to a Stiletto heel. It can be timeless, like a pump, in
fashion or style and have a great design, but can you wear it for very long? Is it
comfortable or Practical? Does it really suit your needs or do you just want it because
Unfortunately these theories not only apply to the world of fashion and shoes, which is
also closely interconnected to interior design, but to furniture design and architecture as
well. They also apply to ideals of what makes a certain architect the ‘greatest architect of
all time’. Many critics, like Scully, believed that Wright was the greatest architect of all
time. They say that he gave the people what they wanted. He afforded the people privacy,
cul-de-sacs and ultimate American home, and gave them what he thought they deserved,
an “American Architecture” (Ken Burns DVD). Furthering the thought that if the artist or
architect thinks themselves to be the greatest architect of all time, does that make them
so, or even strengthen that argument? He thought he was the greatest American architect
probably more than anyone else, going as far to say “If I had another 15 years to live I
could change the entire country.” He was well known for being extremely confident,
even overconfident. (Ken Burns DVD). Wright was “recognized as one of the greatest
pioneers of modern architecture because of his ideas on the function of form and
material. He was one of the first to try linking architecture and furnishings to compose a
harmonious whole.” But if that harmonious whole is not comfortable, does that really
matter? Or is that disregarded because even the designer himself believes himself to be
the “real, modern Da Vinci” and replies to questions with such comments as “When
asked what he thought about being the greatest American architect that ever lived, he
would say, “Forget American, forget living. I’m the greatest architect of all time.” (Ken
Burns DVD).
While I believe that Scully makes interesting claims as do the other critics, I challenge
these critics to revisit the works of Eero Saarinen and contrast him to Wright as the
greatest American architect of all time. I believe that then, if the critics and the viewers,
artists and designers alike revisited his work, they might be shocked like I was to find the
depth he went to in order to create his works, and amazement of the works he did create,
some of which I had no inclination that he created. Saarinen, while awarded, was deeply
underestimated, and had he not died suddenly, I believe had the potential to be considered
design world. There are many elements that can be considered when looking at what
makes someone the greatest architect of all time, from the voices and opinions of critics
like Neil Levine, Vincent Scully and Carla Lind or Antonio Roman, or the collector of
the furniture and the blue collar worker that favors the Wright Art Glass. Many consider
the style of the architect or designer in relation to their own personal style, the amount of
research on the specific architect, the money they earned or the amount of people that
commissioned their work, or even the status of those who commissioned them to be
indicators of the level of the work of the architect. Others might consider the popularity
of the architect, how many people own the pieces or structures by them or even knock
off’s that were inspired by them. If you are adored and have many fans and people love
you, should that indicate whether or not you are the greatest architect of all time? Rather
than taking into account more shallow perceptions of what makes a person great in the
career, I believe it is important to look at art elements in this particular field, because
after all, the designer is an artist. I believe in looking at both Traditional art concepts and
Modernism and looking at the technique and complexity of concept for the artist. How
hard, how long, how difficult to conceive was the idea? The process? How successful
was the artist in their final design from the first conception of the idea? Furthermore, I
challenge these viewers to use the elements of consideration and more to reexamine the
work of Eero Saarinen to make the best educated decision as to who deserves to be the
I also propose to add another element to these considerations. What I believe is wrong
with them is that they do not include the idea of comfort and psychology when
considering the architect. I believe that if the considerations were made using comfort
might have a different opinion of Eero Saarinen and grow to love and appreciate him as I
have in my research.
While researching both Frank Lloyd Wright and Eero Saarinen, other questions arose on
the ideas surrounding comfort and design. One could begin to wonder how the way we
choose our designs, our furniture, our homes and our rooms translates into who we are as
a race or even individually. If we are more willing to choose the furniture that is
uncomfortable and hard on our backs, simply because it is “classic” and easily
recognizable, but willing also to sacrifice our comfort, relaxation and the chance to
decrease our levels of stress, what does this say about the way we live as Americans? The
Furniture design and Interior Designer relates back to the larger arguments held in the
field of American Studies and also Psychology. How do our surroundings influence the
way we live? What does this say about how we as Americans live, and choose our
directly affected by our environment, but also live in a country which gives us the
freedom and the rights to choose our environments, shouldn’t we make the educated
choice to not only choose the furniture that complements our personalities, decreases our
stress and aides us in comforting our bodies? Shouldn’t we choose an architect who
designs the furniture that complements us as the Greatest Architect of all time?
When analyzing the lives of Americans, it is easy to see how busy our lives are, and how
although we may spend a lot of time in our furniture, whether at home or at work, most of
the world outside of the design community does not regard furniture in the everyday.
Most of the world passes by furniture, only stopping to glance if it really strikes the eye,
other things to worry about, two other drive-thrus to get to, homework, part-time jobs to
get to, 2.5 children in daycare and a puppy behind our picket fence.
What I propose is that given the chance, Americans stop for a moment to take a look at
Eero Saarinen and consider him as the Greatest American architect of all time. By
looking at his architecture and comparing it with the architecture of Frank Lloyd Wright,
who has been considered the Greatest American Architect of all time, one can see how he
might have been overlooked, in research and criticism of art historians and the masses,
but shouldn’t be. When this, as well as ideals of comfort are taken into account, the world
will be able to see Saarinen in a new light, which will give him the visibility I believe he
deserves.
By understanding the works of both designers and how and why they created the works
they made, one can see the immediate differences in their works, both conceptually and
stylistically. This illuminates the theories behind comfort in design, and supports my
claim that comfort is an important element in the decision-making behind who should be
the Greatest American Architect of all Time. I believe that if all of these elements are
taken into account, including looking at the idea of comfort and reexamining the work of
Saarinen, the viewer will see what I see, that Eero Saarinen should be and is, the Greatest
Primary Sources
Fallingwater. <http://vinci.org/uml/i/fallingwater-831x624.jpg>.
content/uploads/design/arch.jpg>.
%20saarinen/kimandchris2/stuff/arch1.jpg>.
closer.net/VT010406_003.jpg>.
<http://media.timeoutchicago.com/resizeImage/htdocs/export_images/170/170.x6
00.around.open.wright.1.jpg?>.
otto.jpg>.
Secondary Sources
<http://www.discoverinteriordesign.com/?p=1448>.
Askst, Daniel. "The Architect Who Meant Business." The American (2008).
<http://www.aia.org/practicing/awards/AIAS075247>.
Barnet, Sylvan. A Short Guide to Writing About Art (The Short Guide Series). Upper
Brooks, H. Allen. The Prairie School Frank Lloyd Wright and His Midwest
<http://www.dwr.com/>.
Fehrman, Cherie, and Kenneth Fehrman. Postwar Interior Design. New York: Van
Frank Lloyd Wright. Dir. Ken Burns and Lynn Novick. DVD. PBS Gold Productions,
2001.
<http://www.wrightnowinbuffalo.com>.
"Frank Lloyd Wright." The Pennsylvania Center for the Book. 29 Apr. 2009
<http://www.pabook.libraries.psu.edu/palitmap/bios/Wright__Frank_Lloyd.ht
ml>.
<http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Eero+Saarinen+helped+to+create+the+intern
ational+image+of+post-war+America/1135222206447>.
Huxtable, Ada Louise. Frank Lloyd Wright. The Penguin Group, 2004.
Lind, Carla. The Wright Style. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992.
prod_id=374>.
Scully, Vincent. Modern Architecture and Other Essays. New York: Princeton UP,
2005.
Stokstad, Marilyn. Art History, Volume 2 (3rd Edition). Upper Saddle River: Prentice
Hall, 2007.
The Frank Lloyd Wright Darwin D. Martin House Complex - Frank Lloyd Wright /
<http://unitytemple.org>.
Wright, Frank Lloyd. The Future of Architecture. New York: Horizon P, 1953.
Wright, Frank Lloyd. The Living City. New York: Horizon P, 1958.
Wright, Frank Lloyd. The Natural House. New York: Bramhall House, 1954.