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.
The differences between Charnley and Winslow are in the entrance, where Charnley features a grand stairway, while Winslow hides its stair behind a door, and the verticality that the Charnley stair establishes, whereas there is no vertical anywhere to be found in the Winslow House, other than the exterior of the stair tower on the back façade. The similarity between the 2 is the location of the entrance fireplace. That both have principal rooms left and right of the entrance would be an obvious result of the symmetry.
In fact, in this piece by another researcher, the claim by Wright that he had a private office next to Sullivan’s is questioned...George Grant Elmslie it would appear was in the room where it happened as well.
http://chicagopatterns.com/louis-sulliv ... se-part-2/
To assume that all architectural firms operated that far back in the way that they do today is pure speculation. It does not prove or support the idea of anything. Charnley and Winslow are similar and dissimilar because of FLW, the nature of the properties and the needs and desires of the two different clients. Sullivan might have said, "Frank, put the front door on the Astor Street façade, not Schiller." Or he may not have. No one knows. FLW understood Sullivan's work better than others in the A&S office (with a nod to Elmslie, of course). Whether FLW, Sullivan or Elmslie contrived the decorative elements in Charnley is another conundrum that will never be solved. But the basic design of the exterior and plan, the space within, the magnificent, purely Wrightian stair were not designed by Sullivan.
There is much to be found in the portion of Rachel Freundt's 2017 work on Sullivan and Wright that is published on the linked page. Wright is put somewhat in his place, if everything is to be believed. For me, although Roderick's unbidden input is always of interest, outside in's brief comments above are sufficient for me where the Charnley house is concerned.
To say that the development of projects such as Charnley in most architectural practices is different from the norm, both historically and today, is quite speculative in its own right. Elmslie once wrote : Charnley was a good friend of Sullivan's and he kept close watch on the design of the home" which to me implies that Wright was not left on his own to design the project.
After discounting Sullivan's residential work as being "victorian", which it was not, and implying that he was somehow incapable of creating something as beautiful as the Charnley House, you neglect to mention any work that is comparable to the Charnley House in Wright's work up to 1892. Blossom, McArthur, the Home and Studio, and the other bootleg homes have absolutely no similarities in form, massing, plan or materials to Charnley. Suddenly, in 1892, he independently designs a home with no precedent? I continue to be baffled by individuals who refuse to accept the possibility that the house represents a collaboration between two very talented architects. It is not a Wright design, nor is it a Sullivan design.
I didn't say FLW was left entirely on his own during the process of designing Charnley. Sullivan's "close watch" neither proves nor implies that he was active in its design. Probably Sullivan, knowing his deficiencies in the art of designing residences, was just monitoring FLW without kibitzing. Speculation is all we have on that point.
I didn't say that development of projects at A&S differed from the norm of the day, but said that the norm of the day was not necessarily what it has become today, if it existed at all. Remember that architecture well into the 19th century was a very different thing from what it has become. Such architects as Thomas Jefferson were "gentleman architects" who designed on the side. Corporate architecture as we know it today didn't exist prior to the Civil War. MIT, the first university to open a school of architecture, didn't start design classes until 1868, a year after FLW was born. The entire structure of offices had to have evolved after that date.
In the 1890s, FLW was a young, unknown quantity. He had little control over his work and had to take what he could get, which explains such work as Blossom and McArthur. As to his own house, study it. Though it was not 'cutting edge', it was a step beyond what was happening at the time. It's much more sophisticated once you examine it thoroughly than you might think. Geiger wrote extensively about it. He was 22 and poor at the time. Later he added the magnificent playroom, a true masterpiece. Maybe he copied HH Richardson's library, maybe not. All that connects the two is a barrel vaulted ceiling, which neither of them invented. As for the Studio, that is a masterpiece from end to end. Unity Temple could not have been done without it. When it came to Charnley, FLW was in charge, no question about it.
To get a glimpse of Sullivan as residential architect, read Narciso Menocal's book "Architecture As Nature: The Transcendentalist Idea of Louis Sullivan."
I take exception to that condescending comment. What you are saying is that you are confounded by people who have the temerity to disagree with you. But at least you have conceded that 23-year-old Frank Lloyd Wright was a "very talented architect," and not merely a youth touching the hem of his hero's garment. It is possible for great and youthful artists to show themselves without the blessing of a university degree. Mozart and Mendelsohn come to mind.