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.
Frank Lloyd Wright is one of two creative American geniuses that I'm familiar with. The other is Walt Disney. But whereas Disney was intuitive, Wright could articulate his genius. FLW was actually brought in to talk with Disney animators in 1939 wherein he critiqued the movie “Fantasia,” with astoundingly insightful advice.
That’s why I’m here.
Never heard about Wright and Fantasia.
Is there a record or document of this somewhere?
Did find this:
https://www.mouseplanet.com/8788/Why_Fr ... d_Fantasia
https://disneybooks.blogspot.com/2006/1 ... erion.html
http://disneybooks.blogspot.com/2006/12 ... joyed.html
http://disneybooks.blogspot.com/2006/12 ... lloyd.html
There was a periodical (cannot recall its name) published briefly in Minneapolis in the 20s and 30s, that focused on far, far left politics. FLW supposedly wrote an article for it long before his visit to Russia. I have never found a copy of that, even in "The Complete Writings."
Schindler and Wright ...... you've chosen wonderfully.
Here's a thread from nearly 10 years ago related to Wright and Fantasia.
I live by the beach in LA, within walking distance to Frank Gehry’s first home as well as his newest (unpublicized) home, the Eames House, 3 or 4 Neutras, Harwell Hamilton Harris, Ray Kappe, Eric Owen Moss, Konig Eizenberg, and even a FLW. And if you hop in a car you can spend a month touring architectural landmarks in the city old and new. Why is that? I think it’s because there’s a sense of possibility that hangs in the air like the scent of jasmine. It’s part of the life-style. It’s a city that doesn’t look back if it doesn’t have to. It’s the reason that Wright, and Schindler, and Lautner have built houses here that few locals are even aware of.
My interest in in Schindler grew from my interest in residential hillside building. It’s a regional specialty that most architects avoid, hence the hundreds of cookie-cutter homes you see dotting the foothills. But I did discover one person who mastered the art of the hillside: Rudolph Schindler. I’ve looked at a few of his houses and studied a couple of Judith Sheine’s excellent books on him. In comparing Wright to Schindler, I see Schindler as an architectural genius, a natural, a prodigy. Wright was also a genius, but I wouldn’t limit his genius just to architecture.
Will we ever see another Schindler? No. He was definitely a man of his time.
Up here in the north we have a little piece of geography that might remind one of Silver Lake in LA: "Hurricane Gulch," a residential neighborhood clinging to the side of a steep half-bowl south of downtown Sausalito. It too is populated with houses on stilts, a few of them uphill from the winding street but most built downhill, so that a parking deck is the uppermost level. Some, on slightly less steep topography, extend from the road in more or less one level.
What distinguishes our favorite designers, as Wrightians, here, is their commitment to a certain degree of "style" along with an original and logical approach to building design. Think of those stilt houses; can you imagine Wright, or Schindler, or Lautner, being willing to leave a part of a house "unclothed" in that way ? Ennis house, How house, Lautner's own house: all built on steep sites, all with "nothing to hide"---front, back, or below . . .
There’s obviously a lot more to the FLW "style" than just finding the character of a building. There is his use of grids in plan and elevation which forces his buildings to conform to a kind of “organic” logic, his amazing ability at pre-visualization, along with a limitless and ageless aesthetic vocabulary, as well as his unique personal history.
https://greg.org/archive/2016/05/05/bet ... ks-up.html
Building in the form of a box is not "scientific" ? Is not "economical" ? Complaints of publicity, and more publicity, and still more publicity (to promote the new/old false god, "communistic/collective" non-architecture)---from the master publicity-hound himself ?
But---we know what he means, and we sympathize---I guess !
As for later buildings, I have used the term "otherness." Are Usonian houses (for instance) "timeless" to the same degree or in the same way as earlier ones ?
To clear the mists, I am thinking of external appearance when I speak of the timelessness of a Wright building. To recloud that clarity, it must be said that we haven't defined "timeless" as it might apply to architecture: does it mean that the building would look at home in any century---or does it mean that the appearance of the building suggests a more-or-less definable period of architectural history ?
Rather than trying to shut down conversation that doesn't appeal to us, why don't we open the door to pleasant speculation ? What harm can come from that ? They're only words, after all, and we have plenty of time . . .