What would you do . . . ?

To control SPAM, you must now be a registered user to post to this Message Board.

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.
SDR
Posts: 19439
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

What would you do . . . ?

Post by SDR »

Except as noted, images and scanned text on this page © 2019 by ArchiTech Gallery

What would you do, if you found that an art gallery was offering for sale a drawing supposedly belonging to the Tahoe Summer Colony project, a drawing
said to be in an unknown hand but bearing a red square with Wright's initials on it, a drawing with a provenance of sorts, and a drawing which, on even a
cursory inspection, is clearly not of the quality expected of and demonstrated by any drafter whose work for Wright has been published in the last century ?


http://www.architechgallery.com/gallery ... rspect.htm


There is so much wrong with this sheet that one doesn't know where to begin.

Compare the left and right-hand subsidiary roofs: the left one is symmetrical, while the right-hand one is asymmetrical; the right-hand fascia of that roof
is longer than the left one.

Look at the line work to the boarded or shingled surfaces: the lines are not evenly spaced, as they reliably are in virtually every authentic drawing. The
stonework, the coloring of grass and trees, and the depiction of stained glass are all aberrant when compared to drawings from any period in Wright's
career.

Finally, inspect the red square: it is hopelessly messy and irregular, the coloring perhaps done to suggest age or wear, the lettering partially erased, the
cross-stroke of the F done in two disconnected passes.

This is no sketch; it mimics the style of a finished rendered perspective like many others made for Wright's use and initialed by him, yet it is as crude as
the roughest of Wright's own preliminary sketches. Even the earliest published work of Wright's young sons isn't as incompetent as this sad effort.

The seller does not claim this sheet to be a work of Wright or of any other known drafter, yet the red square is described as "Initialed FLLW and dated
in red square chop lower right." And, despite looking in the large photo like something fresh from the drawing board -- the tracing paper white , the colors
bright -- the piece is said to have been recently conserved; a yellowed drawing is shown in support of this assertion.

To top all this off, the drawing, which pretends to be a version of the Shore Cabin type, with gabled rather than hipped attendant roofs, is labeled by the
gallerist "Fir Tree Cabin Perspective" ! And the online viewer is invited to inspect any portion of the drawing and the "chop" in close-up, via the device
provided. Such chutzpah . . .

So -- what would you do ? What if anything can or should be done to prevent this anomaly from being presented as a work belonging to the Wright oeuvre ?



ImageImage


Authentic "Shore Cabin" drawing:

Image

© The Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation
Last edited by SDR on Tue Jan 01, 2019 11:18 pm, edited 2 times in total.

SDR
Posts: 19439
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »


Craig
Posts: 560
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 7:25 am
Location: California

Post by Craig »

I would immediately contact all known admirers of Fred Wright. They will be delighted to see this.
ch

DavidC
Posts: 7792
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 2:22 pm
Location: Oak Ridge, TN

Post by DavidC »

Is it possible that it's actually a TAA drawing from their Nakoma Golf Resort Project?


David

SDR
Posts: 19439
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Any question on this topic is reasonable to ask, certainly. Could this be a Taliesin drawing post-Wright, connected to a different existing project ?

Aside from the subjective and objective conclusions about the quality of the drawing, which would pertain whether the drawing was made before or
after 1959 -- and the obvious question, how could Wright initial a drawing made after his death -- one would ask "Would any TAA architect reach into
the Wright archive and select a completed design for a project other than the one on the table -- the Nakoma revival -- and make a near-copy of one
of Wright's Tahoe designs, rather than using the existing Nakoma material ?"

S

Roderick Grant
Posts: 10193
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am

Post by Roderick Grant »

We have all learned from years of "Antiques Road Show" that forgeries abound, and the Keno twins are needed to sort it all out. What should be investigated is the ArchiTech Gallery itself. What kind of history does it have? Has it had any controversy in the past? etc.

FLLW would never have chopped a drawing as miserably rendered as this one. Nor would he have let such an incompetent delineator enter his office.

SDR
Posts: 19439
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Forged Wright drawings, however, haven't appeared -- or at least have not been identified as such, have they ? Searching "forged Wright drawings" on Google today brings up . . . nothing.


It was amusing to me to observe the naive drafter, here, fall into a trap as a result, apparently, of failing to understand what he was copying. (It should be clear that he took as his model the known rendering of the Shore Cabin;
the similarities, right down to the placement of two textiles hung from the terrace parapets in precisely their original locations, is proof enough of that ?)

The errant drafter, in morphing Wright's twin hex-plan roof projections into gabled roofs, copied the outlines of the given roof forms, failing to note that the plan shapes of those hips are tipped back from the vertical; see black-and-
white plan drawing below. The resulting perspective view is thus distorted, with the far-right roof profile in particular failing to conform to the shape it should take as the edge of a sloping line on an implied vertical plane.


ImageImage


ImageImage


Image

outside in
Posts: 1253
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2006 9:02 pm
Location: chicago

Post by outside in »

I think the best course of action is to contact the FLW Foundation. They really don't like this sort of thing and I think they would be happy to send the gallery a threatening note on an attorney's letterhead. Terrible drawings - I'm surprised that anyone would try to get away with this.

SDR
Posts: 19439
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Thank you, John; I appreciate that input. Is there an individual to whom I should address my remarks ?

Googling the named owner of the gallery brings up an architect in the D.C. area, and, eventually, this profile:

http://voyagechicago.com/interview/meet ... een-years/

The online site has several pages of archived exhibitions and other material; the one concerning me is here:

http://www.architechgallery.com/artist/wright.htm

In addition to the drawings already posted, the page linked below, from 2009, is the first in the chronology in which remarkable material appears.
There is the Pew drawing (with tinting not seen in a later view ?), a "Kindersymphonies" sheet, a line drawing of the Hunt residence in La Grange,
and two colorful sheets for the Grady Gammage and Annunciation Church commissions. I wish I could see these drawings at enlarged size . . .

http://www.architechgallery.com/artist/ ... htm?wright

S

outside in
Posts: 1253
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2006 9:02 pm
Location: chicago

Post by outside in »

I would write directly to Stuart Graff at the Frank Lloyd Wright foundation. His email is sgraff@franklloydwright.org. You might mention to him that it’s on my recommendation. And thank you for finding this!

SDR
Posts: 19439
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

According to what is written, the gallery, in Chicago, was open for fifteen years beginning in 1999; nothing in the first ten years of shows appear out of place, from what can be seen in the online archive.

The "Postscript" to the "Burnham, Sullivan and Wright" page is of interest . . .

S

PrairieMod
Posts: 494
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 12:40 pm
Location: www.prairiemod.com

Post by PrairieMod »

SDR,

David Jameson operated the bricks and mortar ArchiTech Gallery and consigned these drawings originally.

I would address your questions to him first:

http://www.architechgallery.com/

SDR
Posts: 19439
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Note: Images (except as noted) and scanned text © 2019 by ArchiTech Gallery


See: http://www.architechgallery.com/gallery ... v_plan.htm



ImageImage



Image.......ImageImage
(left) © 2019 by The Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation and by MoMA



ImageImage



Image

.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................



ImageImage

© 1994, Robert L Sweeney (“Wright in Hollywood," p 105), and by The Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation .....................................................................© 2019 by ArchiTech Gallery

SDR
Posts: 19439
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

On Wright's plan drawing, above left, the drafter has employed a split floor plan, a convention which permits the architect to show halves of two different levels of his building in lieu of making two separate drawings. The
conventional broken line, here at the centerline of the house, divides the two halves of the drawing. In the later copy or version, at right, the drafter has apparently misread the original and has made of Wright's split floor
plans a single asymmetrical level; in doing so he adds a non-existent partition in place of the dashed centerline, creating a bizarre layout. How would he have reconciled this result with the symmetrical elevation view on
the same sheet ?

On the second drawing, Wright's thin lines denoting the hips and valleys of the roof have become a couple of random diagonals without meaning.

S

JChoate
Posts: 993
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2016 4:29 pm
Location: Atlanta
Contact:

Post by JChoate »

there's something about those beady little gables that makes me nervous

Image

Post Reply