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.
we look at the building from above, not from ground level (in most cases)---and even then, we don't get close enough to the structure to get a sense
of scale or to take in any intimate detail---much less to glimpse some of the interior as it is encountered in use.
The enclosure of the model in an acrylic box more or less ensures that the above problems will be encountered "in spades."
An alternate to the typical model, as a counter to these demerits, might be a wall-mounted partial model: a full-relief portion of the building, perhaps
encompassing the first three feet of the structure beyond the principal exterior wall. In the case of a Wright Usonian, for instance, this would include
the full exterior expression, including wall surface, fenestration, roof, some portion of the "overhead," slab, and other detail inside the glass, and ex-
terior hardscape (and even landscape) features extending perhaps no more than four feet outside the wall---at whatever scale seemed appropriate,
something between 1/4" and 3/4"= 1'-0" ?
The model would be hung at eye level; a choice would have to be made whether, and how, to accommodate those of less than adult stature ...
I would expect such a model to include full-color representations of the materials found in the building, but a monochromatic basswood expression
would appeal to many, I'm sure. Glazing would be an option; some would prefer to be able to see inside more easily, while others might value the
verisimilitude of actual glazing. Cleaning---by means of photographer's "canned air" ?---would be easier without glass, I suppose.
Thanks, Roderick! I agree with you and with Mr. Wright! My Hooked on The Past project, apart from being a labor of love, has given me much personal and professional satisfaction, I don't complain at all.Roderick Grant wrote:David, some things take a long time. You are building a reputation that will serve you well in the future.
"Profit-taking as a motive for a civilization does not seem to be the ennobling basis for one."
Frank Lloyd Wright
I wonder if the roofs come off of the Fallingwater model. I guess, to see the main level, the whole second and third levels would have to lift off.
The digital model, with walk-through, must be said to offer a more intimate experience. The charm of the physical model lies somewhere else, it seems
to me. If its unique qualities and advantages could be precisely identified, it would help the builder to make certain choices---including scale, material,
accessibility, positioning, etc. Otherwise, it's just a pretty object ?
In Hildebrand's book on the Palmer House, there's a photo of a model done by University students, with a semi-open roof frame form that really pulls you into the details of the design/construction... Pretty neat stuff.
the approach; its penetration of the wall between kitchen and carport must have concerned the builder---as to sequence, if nothing else ?
I can't find the odd free-standing diagonal, above the projecting roof at left, in any other photo of this corner of the house ...