Page 2 of 2

Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2005 8:48 am
by Guest
I too, think that Storrer is perhaps taking his obvious love for FLLW to a new level by mimicking his hero's arrogance and contempt for others who have the audacity to disagree with him. For example Storrer's shameful slam on Mark Hertzberg for actually disagreeing with him about the Corwin design in Racine was embarrassing for him. To date, Hertzberg made a very credible argument for his position, and Storrer relied entirely on conjecture, which may or may not be true. History sides with facts, and when none are forthcoming, you put the conundrum out there anf make your conclusion, and let the debate begin. You have a chance a being wrong. To that, he added a slam on Hertzberg's background (a photographer) and relished his air of superiority upon the reader. Hertzberg wrote an interesting book with a writing style on a par with Storrer's

His work is groundbreaking, and he posesses a vast amount of information and analysis about FLLW. But he is not all knowing. He can be, and is, wrong about some things. His tact, evidenced by the Amberg house anecdote, shows poor taste and a need to be superior to the circumstances, which I see as a character flaw. So, I will continue to enjoy his work and hold him in contempt for his personality.

Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2005 8:54 am
by Guest
Apparently, Storrer thinks that photographers can't do research, read old letters, conduct interviews, look at building plans and write coheretly. They also can't make conclusions based upon their findings and contrast them with others in the field.

What a bombastic jerk.

Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 8:25 pm
by Guest
I am reading this interesting discussion for the first time tonight. I appreciate your kind words about my "Wright in Racine" book and my research about the Mitchell house. I was initially swayed by the thought that the Mitchell house was Wright's, when my newspaper covered the announcement. Once I started researching it, I disagreed. I have seen Mr. Storrer's arguments about why he is convinced it is a Wright home, and I have been sent very convincing arguments against that thought.

I base my conclusion that it is Corwin's, not Wright's on two facts. And, as others have said, if facts to prove Wright's authorship come to the fore, we will all be interested in that.

First, is the afore-mentioned listing of the Mitchell house by Corwin in the March, 1894 Journal of the Inland Architect. Not only was this after Wright had left Adler and Sullivan, and would have had no reason to hide his authorship, but the Bagley house is listed in Wright's own name, several lines below. I researched the Miles house remodeling project (1901) as I was writing the book. The Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation gave it a project number as a result (PR #0117). The first drawing and letter in the Miles file are from Cecil Corwin in 1899. He had moved to New York by then. The commission was to remodel the existing house. Corwin tacks a mini-Mitchell house onto the existing house in his drawing. Would he have done that had the design not been substantially his? I doubt it. The commission went to Wright in 1901. Wright also keeps the existing house, but puts elongated porches on it, giving the house sweeping horizontal lines. An overhead drawing shows a partial some respects a bit like the one I see in my aerial photo of Wingspread.

Mark Hertzberg