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.
In this generosity of "stuff" he continued in old age to echo the dominant feature of the Arts and Crafts aesthetic that characterized much progressive American domestic architecture and furniture during the earliest decades of the twentieth century: broad boards, longer than they need be, long enough to penetrate the verticals and keep on going, are found in the Craftsman bungalow and the Stickley sideboard and settle. Wright is never afraid to specify miles more millwork, in more generous lengths and sections, than his postwar post-and-beam "competitors," in service of an architecture of mass as well as of space . . .
His romance with the forms we spoke of above, and with the "fire at the heart of the house," and with the tree-like cantilevered tower, set him well apart from the steel-frame Chicago tradition, where "form followed function" wherever it might lead, no matter how arid the territory ?
I agree with his positition and would not have been able to put it into words as well as he.
The exceptions to this rule might be interesting to think about.
Sometimes exposed structure does occur.
I'm thinking about the interior of the main room of "Fir Tree" in New Mexico.
There is also a house in the north west which uses exposed trusses - can't remember name.
I think the house that the Waltons rebuilt in Arkansas has exposed beams in the main space.
and then there are all those cantilever counterweights that rise up through the buildings, like the main stone mass at Fallingwater.
However, I do not want to negate anything SDR has said in describing this issue.
I might add the following - what do you guys think about it:
Wright also liked to include in the impact of his work the confound-ment principle.
Part of the power and impact of the work is wondering and NOT knowing how it is possible.
I remember reading somewhere when Wright was asked by an apprentice if he wanted to include more
detail in the presentation about how the Mile High was constructed and Wright replied, something like,
"No, we don't let them know how we do it."
Part of the reason why other work is so prosaic is because it lacks this enigmatic dimension.
In his residences, FLW never catered to the view. Philip Johnson's Glass House is remarkable more for the 40 acres of landscaped privacy it needed to be inhabitable than the floor-to-ceiling glass walls that envelope it. That is the principal failure of all those glass houses of the 50s: They depend on something worthwhile outside to look at. During the midday heat, or to keep looky-loos away, the glass house had to draw the drapes, so it ceased to be a glass house, and became a cloth one. Even when a FLW house had a splendid view - Ennis, Oboler, Fallingwater, Teater, etc. - he provided views within the house that were interesting themselves. The description of FLW's approach to house design by SDR above (at 11:38) is exactly correct. Windows were fill for the spaces between masses.
The comment on views is interesting. I mean is there a more under utilized view opportunity than Hollyhock?