Page 2 of 2

Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2018 7:26 pm
by goffmachine
sdr I re sent you some of the log house images... you can post them here if you like.. check your e mail. ;)

Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2018 7:32 pm
by SDR
Oh, good. I hope you used the gmail address; the Yahoo account is presently unavailable to me.


Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2018 2:38 pm
by Roderick Grant
To be seen or not to be seen, that is the difference. Any effort to represent an unbuilt FLW building for publication should be as close to available information as possible, as SDR points out. I, on the other hand, will mangle anything I get my hands on to my own pleasure. But no one else ever sees what crimes I have committed. Remodeling, I have found, is much easier than coming up with original ideas. I have taken one design (not FLW) and recreated it 14 times, some good, some bad, some embarrassing should anyone else see them. It's fun and harmless. But to turn the brilliant Ralph Jester Project into the bedeviled thing that was recently posted by ... who? Archigram? I don't recall... that's another thing altogether.

Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2018 3:11 pm
by goffmachine
Tough crowd. Was my product so bedeveled or perverted from the original design? I did the best with what I resources I could find to help give some insight and share that information with everyone here. And to smooth things out and prevent harsh critcism I even explained I did not have all I needed but tried my best and to call it "inspired" and still that is not enough? Sheesh...

Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2018 3:52 pm
by SDR
Once something is on the Internet it's there for good. The problem with publishing inaccurate representations of historic art objects is that they can become the unintentional bearers of bad information, which may in turn be re-presented as authentic work.

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 . . .


Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:06 pm
by goffmachine
I concur SDR with what you say about publishing a bad misrepresentation. I did not upload this design to the sketchup warehouse. I chose the angle to render that best represents my attempt to share what the house could look like if built while keeping as close to the original design that i could determine.. thats all. There are horrendous copies of masterpeieces out there. I know. But was my render so sacrilige???? for example. I made sure the render was far enough not to show the deatil of the perfs. because they were unkown. Heck the drawing looks like the side of the building is white. I knew enough not to PAINT the building white.... I tried to show how it could look built. thats all. Is it so OFF? But moreover.. I emphasised that it is not exact in the first place and it should be considered INSPIRED.I dont even like the design. I cant beleieve Im letting myself get such a headache over this...........No good deed goes unpunished.

Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2018 5:00 pm
by SDR
I'm very glad that you brought this obscure pair of designs to the forum.

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.


Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2018 5:53 pm
by SDR
I was amazed and amused to read this piece, on the subject of "improving on the original" in present-day China. ... -obsession

Image Image

Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2018 6:57 pm
by goffmachine
Are you saying my render is in the SAME category as this "improvement"?

Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2018 7:34 pm
by SDR
I am not. Read the article. There is a tangential relationship, perhaps, between the issues we have discussed and the phenomenon taking place in the online world. Or isn't there ?

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 . . .


Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 3:06 pm
by Roderick Grant
I recall a walk through the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NYC some 45 years ago. There was on the wall a typical portrait of a 17th century Dutch man, wearing the sort of black hat Rembrandt gave the surgeon in "The Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Nicolaes Tulp." An 'artist' was seated in front of the portrait, which hung above his head, painting a copy. Unfortunately, he failed to factor in the foreshortening of his angled view, and he painted what he was actually seeing. The poor Dutchman was turning out rather squat. I didn't tap the painter on the shoulder, but perhaps I should have.

Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 3:20 pm
by SDR
That's marvelous. Well, perhaps he wouldn't have welcomed the news that he'd have to begin again; there would be no fixing what he'd made at that point.

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 . . .


Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 1:38 pm
by Roderick Grant
Beautiful Catherine Deneuve appeared on a news program last night, showing close-up what decades of cosmetic surgery looks like at 74. Ingrid Bergman said, "At 40, a woman gets the face she deserves."

Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 1:56 pm
by SDR


Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2020 4:28 pm
by Macrodex
SDR wrote:
Mon Jan 08, 2018 4:52 pm
Visions 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.

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.

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.