For sale: Richardson House - Glen Ridge, NJ

[SDR]

The latest Cassina version of the Origami chair is a modification of the earliest Taliesin-drawn design; it is not identical to any Origami made during
Wright's lifetime, in form or in color. Would the current version have been approved by Mr Wright ? We cannot know.

Each modification of a Wright design represents a degree of removal from the designer's intent. At what point do we cease to credit Mr Wright with the
design as presented ? The decision---assuming that consensus could be achieved---would have to be applied on an individual basis to each object
considered.

I raised the issue of provenance in connection with the Richardson chairs because the objects are presented with a minimum of information: we are
not told who made the chairs, or when, or of what material. We are encouraged to assume that the chairs accurately reflect Wright's design---but we
will have to make that determination for ourselves.

I submit that any alteration to what was drawn under Mr Wright's direction (and submitted to the client with his approval) represents a loss of fidelity to
the architect's intention, and thus brings into question a claim to Wright's name in connection with the object.

No museum curator would knowingly accept for display a work not by the artist whose name is attached to that work. Given that every production of a
Wright design will have its own identity---no two pieces of wood are identical, for starters---it remains a matter of importance that objects said to be
"Wright designs" are faithfully executed in accordance with the designer's intent, made to match as closely as possible those pieces first executed to
those designs, and/or faithful to the drawings from which those original pieces were made.

S

[Roderick Grant]

If "any alteration to what was drawn under Mr. Wright's direction (and submitted to the client with his approval) represents a loss of fidelity to the architect's intention," could that loss apply equally to chairs and entire projects? Are all structures altered by clients, builders and even apprentices without FLW's knowledge and approval thus flawed? If so, would that justify going back to the original intent of, say, Ennis or Barnsdall as a true restoration? I would say "YES" to that.

[SDR]

And I would agree. As I tirelessly opine, it is not the materials with which a building is made which make it precious, it is the design which those materials embody.

None of that is to say that it is not appropriate or legitimate to rethink a Wright design. It only means that, once departing from the original, the observer/purchaser
has a right---and Wright has a right---to have that modification acknowledged.

I don't object to the new Cassina Origami (or "Upholstered Easy Chair," to quote the early Taliesin drawings); I think it's very pretty. And perhaps it is more
comfortable, too ? But it is no longer Wright's design ...

S

[Paul Ringstrom]

the new owner of the Stuart Richardson House:
https://www.acollectedman.com/blogs/jou ... todd-levin

[Paul Ringstrom]

Todd Levin on watch collecting:
https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/talki ... todd-levin

[Paul Ringstrom]

deleted link

[pmahoney]

The link posted today refers to a past sale, the house is not on the market.