What would you do . . . ?
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
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 ?
Authentic "Shore Cabin" drawing:
Ã‚Â© The Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation