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.
Ennis, for instance, became something FLW disapproved of so adamantly that he disowned it. Then he remodeled it. So why not have what he designed to begin with, what Mabel Ennis' alteration did to the design, and what Nesbitt could have had if he'd followed through? To compare images of what FLW wanted to get from his fenestration, and what Mabel got instead, would be very illuminating.
Regarding the lamp or ornament that appears in the section drawing, it disappeared in the final drawings, Wright added instead six more simple pendant light fixtures, which hung from the corners of the main skylight and that to some extent remind me of this one:
Regarding Wright's lack of minimalism, I have always thought that his taste for ornament is one of the reasons for his popularity.
And, to what degree have those appreciating the work been able to---or have wished to---separate the decoration from the larger content, and meaning, of that work ?
I do not have an answer to that but I intuit that the question of adornment connects widely with the people without being, by any means, the only reason.
As far as ornament goes, I have long felt that there was a time in the 19-teens when Wright doubled down on ornament in many unbuilt projects. By the 1930s he had given up on that and streamlined his work. About the only decorative elements in the Usonian houses were the perforated wood elements. I think he real appeal was often the long dramatic horizontal lines of his designs.
In any event he was unique, perhaps in all of the ways we have discussed so far: the work itself, his presentation of himself and the work, and the reception from colleagues/"competitors," the press, and the public.
My take on Wright is that he was that strange thing called a genius who saw possibilities far outside of any trends or fashion. He, like Picasso, invented several architectural vocabularies. Like Shakespeare he wasn't of a time, but of all time. Whether people of his time actually recognized that is another matter. Some clearly did...clients, apprentices, and others in the field.
It's hard to know or recall, now, what Wright was to the average American by 1959. I do know that he wasn't touched by any faculty when I was in design
school in the early 'sixties. One got the feeling that he was somehow beyond the pale---or at least, off the table. The work, even some of the newest from
Taliesin at that time, would then have been, of course, alien to the conventional MCM adherent, which itself in turn was distinctly avant-garde and perhaps
suspicious, to the lay audience.
The FLLW Foundation quarterly magazine has been kind to show online the article dedicated to the Gordon Strong project, in which my illustrations appear, some of which had not been seen online to date:
https://franklloydwright.org/architectu ... objective/
And on the other hand, it is already possible to see the cover for the next magazine, which the FLLW Foundation has shared through Twitter and which also includes my illustrations:
I hope you like it!
The design includes some stone-finished partitions, specifically the fireplace area, but they are not visible from the outside.
For this project, there are complete constructive drawings.
I have also modeled version two of this house for the magazine, whose design instead was much more preliminary.