EFFECTIVE 14 Nov. 2012 PRIVATE MESSAGING HAS BEEN RE-ENABLED. IF YOU RECEIVE A SUSPICIOUS DO NOT CLICK ON ANY LINKS AND PLEASE REPORT TO THE ADMINISTRATOR FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION.
This is the Frank Lloyd Wright Building Conservancy's Message Board. Wright enthusiasts can post questions and comments, and other people visiting the site can respond.
You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, *-oriented or any other material that may violate any applicable laws. Doing so may lead to you being immediately and permanently banned (and your service provider being informed). The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. You agree that the webmaster, administrator and moderators of this forum have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic at any time they see fit.
Would you want false representations of your artistic endeavors to be published, under your name or not ?
The Sketchbook Warehouse is full of tortured misrepresentations of everything from Fallingwater to the Mars Rover, each one a ticking time bomb of misinformation waiting to be swept up into some innocent tenth-grader's term paper.
Isn't the challenge of accurately modeling Wright's work enough for the budding modeler ? These models have the potential to provide a priceless, and previously unavailable, inspection of one of Wright's buildings from every possible angle, providing the student and the connoisseur alike the opportunity of a truer understanding and appreciation of the work.
Craft is a noble calling -- but as with any other artistic pursuit there is an unspoken code of conduct: copyists are bound to do their utmost to faithfully recreate another's work. The model for this activity might be found in the endeavors of the archeologist, whose painstaking recording of what's found in a fresh "dig" can be relied upon by others in his field, whether physical modeler, museum curator, or author, in their presenting the finds to the public -- unadulterated, with a minimum of error and a maximum of useful data, from which a true understanding of the past can be gained.
It would be a shame if our new tools, available for the first time to amateur and expert alike, were to lead to the destruction of the traditions of art appreciation and scholarship that have been painstakingly upheld until now. Sadly, that destruction seems already well underway; let's do what we can to arrest it, using these tools for good rather than for ill. Let's accept the challenge of faithfully representing of the work of a genius -- for public consumption, at least -- and let our models be true mirrors of what that work has to offer . . .
Please don't get a headache. You didn't misrepresent this as a faithful copy. My comments are directed at the modeling community as a whole. I have no power to change the minds of others; they will do what they will. I only wish to impress upon those who may not be aware of it, that there is a tradition in the art we love and share, a tradition of faith to the original. It's a matter of deciding to put aside one's own creative impulse, in deference to a greater designer -- a matter of respect, as I see it.
If your version of Wright's design has a roof fascia that is twice the width of his, I'm sure that it looks right to you. For all I know, it is a better design. This wouldn't be my favorite Wright house no matter what, I expect.
I'm sorry you didn't have the elevation drawings at hand when you began your work. And I'm glad you had the pleasure of building something -- that is the greatest pleasure I know.
I had the same experience as this when I observed my friend Jeff Myers doing his work with Wright. I browbeat him mercilessly when I found errors in the work -- most of which was incredibly good and a great service to the community. It seemed to be an issue of not appreciating the difference between drawing Wright, and designing something fresh that amused him. He seemed to get the message, as time went on.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017 ... -obsession
Let's have open minds, if we can, even about our own work. Let's take the focus off goffmachine's version of the Waterstreet/Prout design and model, and consider what constitutes reality, on paper, in the flesh, and onscreen . . .
No one likes to have his work critiqued; I know I don't. But, that's what a disinterested observer is for: to see what the student cannot -- or will not ?
I was especially unnerved to read, in the New Yorker piece, that users of these apps wouldn't dream of transmitting a selfie -- or a photo of a friend -- without "improving" the image, one way or another. I was a bit surprised to hear that these kids are willing to appear in the flesh, at wang hong conventions, warts (or freckles) and all. Those who can afford it -- and there are many -- do indulge themselves with plastic surgery, of course . . .
When I made the site, I had to resize all of the images, of course; and my scanner might not be the best, but it's what I had to make due with -- rolling it over the actual pages of the books and sometimes there would be warping if my hand wasn't steady.SDR wrote: ↑Mon Jan 08, 2018 4:52 pmVisions of Wright is a mixed blessing at best, no ? There are dozens of designs that I daresay none of us had ever laid eyes on, before the Taschen volumes were published -- though many of the images could be found in black-and-white, a generation earlier, in the Monographs. But most are apparently reproduced at 1:1 from scans of the books, so they are of little use, on the screen, for study of the work. The site host asks that images posted be at least 600 x 800 pixels in size -- but the posts typically include two drawings together in one frame, so many of them are even smaller than in the book.
And, other than client and date (with occasional inaccuracies), no information on the project is provided to the reader. Yet, for many, I suppose these images will be their only access to some of Wright's most interesting and, in many cases, remote work.
The images, I feel, are pretty good considering and I am way too lazy to go through the effort to scan them again. If anyone else wants to take the time to do it, they can. Ideally, someone with access to the Monographs could scan everything related to the unbuilt projects as possible and archive that. I, at the time, only had the Taschen books and a handful of other books that I could find good images to scan from.