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 particular, it's fine to see the forms and details at the Chicago Avenue facade of the Studio, the lecturn and light fixtures at Unity Temple---and especially the restored (replaced) exterior lettering on the building. Although I regret the immature forms of the Roman face (or font)---whether drawn by Wright or by a drafter---it is good to see that the characters appear well-made and -applied.
Here they are, in good condition:
https://vincemichael.com/2010/10/04/uni ... ng-stolen/
Here they are coming loose from the building (but not yet damaged or removed by vandals):
https://www.archdaily.com/112683/ad-cla ... ht-3-image
And here are their ghosts, presumably after removal:
http://www.mcnees.net/architecture/prai ... o_remc.jpg
The array of letterforms as a unit scan fairly well; they make an attractive block of text, and are nicely framed by the dingbats or devices Wright provided as a framing element. It is the individual letters that I find ill-formed: some letters are wider than they ought to be---the A and V, for instance---while others are badly formed, like the M. The spacing between H and E in "THE" is too tight. And, the thicks and thins, which were placed by their makers, two thousand years ago and more, to reflect the thicks and thins that appear naturally when using the pen or the brush, are here "all over the map."
It's not as if Mr Wright and his crew didn't know what good Roman letters look like; see for instance the title block on a drawing for the Fricke commission, of a couple of years earlier:
A commonly-cited source for the forms of this alphabet is found on Trajan's Column, constructed in Rome in the second century A.D.
https://arts.st-andrews.ac.uk/trajans-c ... -8-cpd.jpg
These letters have served admirably as signage or inscription on public buildings over many centuries, carved into stone surfaces or cast in bronze and applied to those surfaces. The latter often looked like this:
https://www.etsy.com/listing/744309952/ ... _ZEALw_wcB
The letters on Unity Temple, cut from flat stock of brass or bronze, were less costly to make no doubt than cast ones; perhaps their very flatness appealed to Wright's taste for some reason. But who drew them ? Was something lost in translation ? Their irregularity oddly echos that of the lettering on the presentation drawing. In any event, let us hope that they will stay in place for at least as long as did the first set; as thin and narrow pieces of metal attached with few (visible )fasteners, they cannot be expected to be as rigid and as permanent as carved or cast ones. But at least they resemble the originals---for better or worse.